Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Debt Relief

Christine Russell: If he will press G7 Finance Ministers, at their meeting in February, to take further action on debt relief.

Clive Betts: If he will make a statement on the initiatives that the Government will bring forward during the UK's presidency of the G7 on cancellation of debt in the poorest countries.

Tony Lloyd: What plans he has to extend debt cancellation to heavily indebted poor countries; and if he will make a statement.

Gordon Brown: For the G7 Finance Ministers' meeting, which takes place in London tomorrow and Saturday, the UK has put forward detailed proposals for 100 per cent. multilateral debt relief for poor countries. We will discuss using International Monetary Fund gold and financing World Bank debt service payments. The aim is to bring to an end once and for all the tragedy of poor countries' unpayable debt.

Christine Russell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Today, many of my constituents have travelled down from Chester to attend the "Make Poverty History" rally, which I believe will be addressed in an hour's time by the former President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela. I am sure that all Labour Members welcome him to London. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] He is on record as calling for the world's richer countries to make a bigger contribution to helping the poorer ones achieve their millennium goals. What more does my right hon. Friend think that Britain can do to galvanise global action to eradicate poverty and debt throughout the world?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a huge interest in these matters. All Members of the House will want to welcome former President Mandela to London and to welcome his wife, Graca Machel, who is joining him. I gather that he is speaking in Trafalgar square in only a few minutes' time, which perhaps explains why so few Conservatives are here today. I had the privilege of meeting him yesterday, and he urged us to move forward with our proposals on debt relief and on the international finance facility. He speaks not just for the developing world and the emerging markets countries, but for a very large proportion of industrialised countries, which want a solution once and for all to the tragedy of promised debt relief not being given to the poorest countries.

Clive Betts: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the tremendous lead that he has given on this issue on the international stage, but will he clarify two points? First, how can we guarantee that the money saved through debt relief will be spent on health and education, and not on more arms and luxurious lifestyles for some of the leaders concerned? Secondly, how would he provide the money for debt relief if, at the same time, he had to cut £35 billion from public expenditure?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When I had the good fortune to be in Tanzania and to meet President Mkapa only a few days ago, he agreed that the additional debt relief that we are providing unilaterally to Tanzania will go directly towards financing secondary education, free of charge, to pupils in his country. When we signed a similar agreement with the Prime Minister of Mozambique the next day, she said that the money would be used for health, education and infrastructure development. If our proposals for Mozambique come off, debt as a share of its national income will fall from 6 per cent. to 2 per cent., and then to just 0.5 per cent. That would be a major advance, because Mozambique is spending more on debt interest today than on education or health.
	On the proposals of all parties in this House for dealing with the debt tragedy, I hope that the shadow Chancellor can say today that he supports us in providing the resources for debt relief, and that he would not cut his party's overseas development budget.

Tony Lloyd: May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on his personal commitment to this initiative, which will make an enormous difference to the quality of life—and, indeed, the lives—of millions of people? I know that he is keen to promote poorer countries' access to trading systems, so that they can trade with markets such as ours. Does he accept, however, that although freeing up trade for such countries is very important, it is also important that they do not face unfair competition from rapacious producers in countries such as ours, who   would simply destroy their developing trading structures?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend, who has also taken a huge interest in these matters, speaks for the millions of people in this country who are concerned about not just debt relief but trade justice. One proposal that we will advance at the G7 Finance Ministers' meeting is that, as we seek a solution during December's world trade talks in Hong Kong, we will make resources available to build up the capacity of such countries, particularly those in Africa, to engage in trade in the international community on equal terms. By capacity we mean help with infrastructure—road, rail and communication—and with training and education. That would be an important advance.
	My hon. Friend also rightly points to the key element of debt relief, and I am pleased to tell him that yesterday, Canada supported our proposals. Its Finance Minister stated that Canada wants 100 per cent. debt relief, and I praise him for doing so. Every day, additional countries are saying that they are now prepared to support a final settlement to the issue of providing 100 per cent. debt relief for multilateral debts owed to the IMF and to the World Bank.

Vincent Cable: May I add my appreciation for the Chancellor's work on overseas development and debt, which may stand him in good stead when he is promoted to become the Secretary of State with responsibility for foreign affairs and overseas development?
	Specifically on tsunami relief, will he clarify the position? The Government have offered debt relief and debt cancellation, but the two countries that have applied are apparently being told that payments will be postponed and that interest will be fully capitalised and has to be paid in full. It has even been suggested that there will be interest on the interest. That is certainly not debt relief, let alone debt cancellation. If there is genuine debt relief, where in the public accounts is provision made for extra funding over and above the pre-existing Overseas Development Administration-Department for International Development budget?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes the issue of debt relief complex, but he is simply wrong. He is wrong because we told Indonesia that there would be a moratorium on debt interest payments until such time as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank complete the needs assessment. That assessment will be available this weekend, and we will then look again at the position of Indonesia, which already has a moratorium. We have to look into what more we can do. Indonesia has also been offered a very substantial loan from the IMF for emergency assistance.
	For the second country, Sri Lanka, we have offered not only a moratorium on debt relief, but cancellation of the debts that the country owes to the World Bank and other international institutions. We have agreed that Sri Lanka, as a low-income country, should now join the list of 70 countries eligible for debt relief. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would support that.
	We have put money into the tsunami disaster appeal from the reserve and also provided extra money through tax relief on gift-aid donations. We have also provided tax relief on VAT requirements in respect of the national concert record and the CD that has been issued. No VAT will be charged as a result and we will give a similar payment to the appeal. Through public expenditure, debt relief and forgone tax revenue, we are providing substantial resources and we look forward to discussing with the World Bank president and the managing director of the IMF on Saturday what more we can do for what I hope we all agree should be a united effort among all the rich countries to help these two countries in difficulty.

Peter Tapsell: Did the Chancellor learn, perhaps on the bush telegraph while he was relieving debt in Africa, that the Prime Minister was planning to relieve him of his burdens at the Treasury here in Britain?

Gordon Brown: I might listen to the hon. Gentleman if he had ever got anything right. He was completely wrong when he opposed the independence of the Bank of England and he is completely wrong again.

Alistair Carmichael: Can the Chancellor give the House an absolute assurance that essential services such as education in heavily indebted poor countries will not be damaged while the countries themselves are in the process of qualifying for debt relief? Surely we do not want to find ourselves facing the situation that we saw in Uganda where the Government introduced fees for primary education as a justification during the qualifying process.

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman must look at the facts. In Uganda, the number of children in primary education has risen from 2 million to 6 million and primary education there is free. If the hon. Gentleman considered Tanzania, Mozambique and South Africa, as well as Uganda, he would find that attempts have been made to remove charges for primary education and health. What worried me most when I visited African countries was that fewer than 10 per cent. of pupils were able to get secondary education and those who did had to pay fees. It is with respect to secondary education that the issue of fees arises. That is why we signed an agreement with Tanzania—so that secondary education could be provided free of charge—and why the World Bank has changed its position and is now opposed to user fees for primary and secondary education. I believe that our duty to those countries is to make it possible, through our proposals for the international finance facility, to finance both universal and free education and health care.

Tom Clarke: My right hon. Friend pointed out very tellingly that something like 80 per cent. of the poorest countries' historical debt is owed to the international institutions. Does he agree that it is absolutely right of him to press the IMF to consider the use of its existing assets, including gold, as stability and growth in the developing countries is useful to those institutions as well?

Gordon Brown: My right hon. Friend has an honourable record in pushing this issue, and especially debt relief. The poorest countries in the world owe the IMF $12 billion. If the IMF were prepared to revalue or sell its gold, that would be the best way of removing those countries' liability. I believe that there is an understanding in most of the industrial countries that that is the best way to deal with the problem. I hope that, in the next few weeks, we will secure agreement among the G7 member countries that that proposal can be made to the IMF meeting to be held in Washington in April. It is to the credit of all parties in this House that time has been devoted to these issues today, but the important thing—especially as we listen to people making their case in Trafalgar square and elsewhere—is to get an agreement among the major countries.

Personal Savings

Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on current levels of personal savings.

Stephen Timms: The savings ratio has risen over the past year. With individual savings accounts, the new child trust funds, the Sandler suite of stakeholder savings products available from April and an expanded pilot of the saving gateway for low-income savers, we are encouraging personal saving with new incentives, simpler products and better consumer information.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that, when the Labour party took office, it inherited a very healthy household savings ratio of nearly 10 per cent., and a private pension sector that was the envy of the western world? Eight years on, household debt has reached a staggering £1 trillion, and the private pension sector is in crisis. What has gone wrong?

Stephen Timms: The savings ratio is about at the level of the early 1960s, and above its level in 1988, when the hon. Gentleman was on the Government Benches. It is much higher than it is in the US, and about the same as in Japan. As I said, it has risen in the past year, but we want to do more to encourage saving and to build a savings culture across the UK. The new child trust fund is an excellent example of that, and we have made welcome changes in respect of pensions. Across the board, we are doing what is necessary, but I emphasise that the UK's savings ratio is extremely healthy compared to the position in the US and Japan.

Bill O'Brien: Does my hon. Friend accept that people now have more scope for saving than ever before, and that their quality of life is much better now than was the case under the Tories? Will he and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor ensure that Tory proposals have no chance to threaten those things, and that we are allowed to continue along the lines that have been set out?

Stephen Timms: I certainly will. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there have been substantial increases in pensioner income since 1997, and the rate of increase has been significantly higher than that of earnings. That is extremely welcome, but we will also make sure that pensioners do not suffer from the very high rates of inflation and the 15 per cent. interest rates that we had under the previous Conservative Government.

Howard Flight: Does the Minister appreciate that the Government's £5 billion pension tax has served to knock some £100 billion off the value of pension fund investments as well as costing them some £40 billion in accumulated income?

Stephen Timms: The Turner commission pointed out that the impact of that change was comparable to the change introduced in the Finance Act 1986, about which we hear rather less from the Opposition. No party in this House argues that the change should be reversed, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the last thing that we should do is go back to the days of very high inflation and 15 per cent. interest rates. Those conditions were very damaging, for pensioners and for everyone else.

Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be a higher level of personal saving if banks had a better reputation among consumers? That reputation could be secured if banks did not charge people for taking money out of cash machines and if they did something about orphan funds—such as investing them in overseas development.

Stephen Timms: It is important, as the Treasury Committee has said, to build confidence in long-term savings. I look forward to giving evidence to the Committee shortly, specifically on the point about ATM charges made by my hon. Friend. We need to build confidence, and all the measures that we have taken, particularly the introduction of the Sandler suite of stakeholder products from April, will help the industry as a whole to build confidence among its customers.

Richard Spring: Given the desirability of savings, not least to pay extortionate council tax bills, and given the view of the Association of British Insurers that there is an annual savings gap of no less than £27 billion, will the Minister limit the terrible damage that his taxes have done to pensions savings by ruling out any further tax grab on Britain's beleaguered savers?

Stephen Timms: I do not agree with a number of the hon. Gentleman's comments. The change in pension funds that he referred to was offset by the accompanying reduction in corporation tax. The impact of the change is about one tenth of the difference in performance between the best and worst performing pension providers. Pensioners and everyone in the UK have benefited enormously from the remarkable new stability that we have achieved in the economy since 1997, and our focus is on making sure that those benefits continue.

G8 Presidency

Colin Burgon: What his economic priorities are for the G8 presidency.

Gordon Brown: Our G8 presidency will focus on global growth and stability and measures to achieve it, structural economic reform, modernisation of the international financial institutions, climate change and, as we have said this morning, issues of global poverty.

Colin Burgon: I thank the Chancellor for his reply. What specific measures does he intend to propose to the G7 to maintain economic stability and increase growth in the world economy this year?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that in his constituency we now have the lowest interest rates, inflation and unemployment for many years. [Interruption.] The Conservatives become restive when we talk about low inflation, low interest rates and high employment, because we did not have much of that when they were in power in the early '90s. As for the G8, we will discuss not only the economic issues arising from the current account exchange imbalance but the path of global growth over the next year. It will be up to every continent to make a contribution to global growth and stability. The American President spoke last night in his State of the Union address about the need to cut deficits, and European Ministers will speak about the need to intensify economic reform. Japan will be asked to look at its financial sector and how it can reform so that it can play a part in achieving growth. The way forward for the global economy is for each continent to say this weekend at the meeting of the G7 Finance Ministers that we will all contribute to higher growth levels in the world economy this year.

Francis Maude: Will the right hon. Gentleman spend a little less time worrying about other countries' economic difficulties, because the reality is that if Labour wins the next election, he will not be Chancellor of the Exchequer? It is common knowledge that the Prime Minister has decided that he is unfit to be Prime Minister after him.

Gordon Brown: I would spend more time listening to the right hon. Gentleman if he had not spent all his time as shadow Chancellor predicting a recession in Britain. He should congratulate us, because we are the only major industrial country that has maintained consistent growth in the past seven and a half years of a Labour Government. That would not have happened under the policies that he advocated.

Julia Drown: During our presidency, will the Chancellor tackle global poverty by raising the issue of looted assets. The United Nations estimates that $11 billion has been looted by corrupt people from Kenya and Nigeria. Much of that money is in western banks in the developed world. There has been an initiative to try to tackle money laundering for terrorism and drugs. Could that be extended so that money can be returned to the poorest countries where it is most needed?

Gordon Brown: As my hon. Friend will know, the question of looted assets from Nigeria is being discussed in some detail by the authorities. As for the general issue of action against terrorism and drugs, there will be a discussion about that at the G7 meeting. We must agree to tighten up in every country the rules governing the treatment of those issues. I hope, over the course of the year, that we will be able to secure a general statement from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank on those matters.

Julie Kirkbride: The Chancellor said that climate change would be one of his priorities for the G8. Is that just another example of his trying to lecture others when he does little about the issue at home? One of the most obvious things he could do would be to create a differential between unleaded fuel and other fuels, which would significantly cut carbon dioxide emissions. He does not do that. Is that because he is more interested in tax revenue than in the right policy?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Lady speaks for a party that when it was in government introduced an above-inflation rise in petrol, saying that it was doing so for environmental reasons. The minute we said we would continue with that policy, the Conservatives dropped their policy in its entirety. They said that they would support us on climate change yet they oppose the climate change levy. We shall take no lectures on the environment from the Conservatives.

Nick Palmer: Will the Chancellor explicitly reject the suggestion from the Opposition Benches that we should take no interest in the economic policies of other countries? Does he agree that nowadays Britain needs more than ever to work with its partners in the European Union and across the world because the world is interdependent and our prosperity depends on it?

Gordon Brown: I am going to take an interest in the economic performance of other countries, and so should every party in the House. When the shadow Minister for deregulation did so and asked,
	"What are the most attractive locations today?"
	he talked about "the lure" of the United Kingdom.

Oliver Letwin: Given that China's productivity growth is running at about three times the rate of the G8 countries', I am sure that the Chancellor will agree that productivity needs to be a priority for the G8. But how can he hope to put that vital topic on the G8 agenda when his taxes and regulations have caused a drop of a third in Britain's productivity growth rate?

Gordon Brown: I just mentioned the shadow Minister for   deregulation who has congratulated us on our record on the economy—[Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] This is the answer to the question. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems that he thought we were creating. Businesses are reluctant—[Interruption.] This is what the shadow Minister for deregulation said:
	"The single most important consideration is the cost impact of Government. Businesses are reluctant to locate in places where . . . tax rates are high . . . Places like . . . the UK . . . attract because their tax rates for business are low."
	That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Oliver Letwin: The Chancellor's concept of an answer is an interesting one. He did not mention productivity growth rates, which are what my question was about. There is of course a reason why he did not mention them. Britain's productivity growth rate has been only 1.8 per cent. a year over the last eight years, compared to a G8 weighted average productivity growth rate of about 2 per cent. over the same period. The Chancellor did not always avoid the subject. In 1998, he described productivity growth as
	"a fundamental yardstick of economic performance".
	I agree. So why, instead of leading the G8 efforts to improve productivity, is he proposing to damage our productivity further by more regulation and more tax?

Gordon Brown: I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he should look at the facts. Year on year, there has been productivity growth in the British economy. Year on year, there has been manufacturing productivity growth. That did not happen under the previous Government when productivity suffered negative growth. If he wants to know about the comparison with other countries, we have closed the productivity gap with Japan, we have closed the productivity gap with Germany, we are closing the productivity gap with France and we are making inroads in the productivity gap with the United States. The reason that we are doing so is that we have achieved a level of economic stability in this country that his party could only dream of.

Children's Services

Lawrie Quinn: If he will make a statement on current and projected levels of public spending on children's services and provision for the under-fives.

Gordon Brown: Total investment in Sure Start, child care, nursery education and children's services is expected to rise from £7.3 billion to £9 billion in 2007–08. That is to ensure that not just some children but every child has the best start in life.

Lawrie Quinn: I thank my right hon. Friend not only for that answer but for the incredible priority that the Government have given to such an important matter for the future of our nation. Last Friday, I visited a brand new children's centre in the Barrowcliff area of my constituency. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how the ambitions for the people of east Whitby for a similar children's centre can be rolled out in the future? I hope that he will be able to continue with those policies so that those people can achieve what they really want.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend has supported the creation of the Sure Start centre in his constituency. The number of Sure Start children's centres will rise from the 550 that we have at present, to 2,500 over the next few years. That major extension in the number of Sure Start centres has been made possible by the extra spending that we are proposing. The unfortunate thing, however, is that the Conservative party plans to cut that spending on those children's programmes.

Martin Smyth: We welcome the extra money for children's welfare. I take it that that money is spread throughout the United Kingdom, not just the English and Welsh economy. Given the presence on the Treasury Bench of a Northern Ireland Minister who is responsible for education, may I press the Chancellor to ensure that some of that money will go to help the homework clubs, which have been doing a lot to improve the welfare of children in Northern Ireland?

Gordon Brown: The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, has informed me that that is exactly what he plans to do, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to congratulate him in person.

Ken Purchase: May I congratulate the Chancellor on his excellent programme of alleviating difficulties for children, particularly with the Sure Start programme and its like? Does he agree that even more money could be spent effectively and that the source of that money may well be a windfall tax on the excessive profits of the banks? I suggest that he start with £8 billion—the additional profit over the £40 billion that they recorded for last year.

Gordon Brown: Without the need for a windfall tax, we have managed to increase investment in those services by £1.7 billion over the next few years—that is why my hon. Friend's constituency can look forward to something like three or four Sure Start centres—but that would not have been possible without our decision to use this country's resources to invest in children. In the old welfare state, children and mothers received maternity services and vaccination, and they were then asked to appear for school at five years old. The range of services now available in Sure Start, day care, and nursery places, as well as all the help that is now available to mothers, shows that this is the new frontier of welfare policy, helping every child in this country.

Tim Loughton: May I invite the Chancellor to put right the erroneous statement that he just made? The Conservative party supports the expansion and improvement of Sure Start, as he knows only too well, and I hope that he will not wish to mislead the House. I am sure that he would not want just to grab headlines without doing the figures first, so will he explain how he intends to increase the number of Sure Start centres from about 500 to 2,500 over the next three years—a five-times increase—when he has only doubled the amount of cash that he has given to that programme?

Gordon Brown: The number of Sure Start centres in the programme will rise first from 550 to 1,000, then to 2,000 and then to 2,500, and they are all properly financed, as the hon. Gentleman can see from our programme. As for the Conservative party's programme—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) gets only one bite at the cherry.

Gordon Brown: The shadow Chancellor should listen to this. We would look in the first instance to some of the money currently spent on Sure Start to fund the programme, thus cutting
	"the conveyor belt to crime",
	to which the shadow Chancellor referred when he was shadow Home Secretary. During a Conservative party conference, he said:
	"The cost is modest and could easily be accommodated within the less well-focused Sure Start programme."
	Again, he has got to answer for a proposal to cut Sure Start budgets.

Joan Humble: May I tell my right hon. Friend that there is an excellent Sure Start project in Fleetwood in my constituency? I am looking forward to the extra money that he has announced enabling more Sure Start projects and more children's centres, but will he make sure that, as the funding for Sure Start projects is incorporated into mainstream budgets, especially those of local authorities, there is a proper framework within which they will further develop the children's centres and Sure Start to ensure that that excellent project continues?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing the Sure Start programme in her constituency. She is absolutely right to suggest that there must be help with early learning and health services for the young child and the mother. One of the advantages of the Sure Start programme is that we get invited sometimes as Ministers to open those Sure Start centres. To see a Sure Start centre working, with all the parents and children directly involved in its running, is something that makes me proud of our Government's achievements.

Government Borrowing

Andrew Selous: What assessment he has made of the effect of levels of Government net borrowing on the level of taxation.

Paul Boateng: The 2004 pre-Budget report set out the Treasury's latest projections for net borrowing and tax receipts.

Andrew Selous: With the Government forecasting their borrowing at £93 billion over this Parliament and a further £114 billion over the next four years, and with corporation tax revenue, especially, expected to be lower than forecast, will the Chief Secretary tell the House which taxes will rise to pay for that borrowing? Will he do that with a little more accuracy than the Prime Minister, who when asked before the last election,
	"whether any reasonable person wouldn't suppose that you therefore propose to increase National Insurance Contributions",
	replied, "They shouldn't"?

Paul Boateng: The hon. Gentleman well knows that our borrowing is sustainable. We have an excellent forecast record. For him to suggest for one moment that the Government need to learn anything from him or his party about borrowing is to live in cloud cuckoo land. The fact of the matter is that today's borrowing at 35 per cent. is way below that in 1996–97, when it was 44 per cent. of gross domestic product. He should remember that in every year since 1997 and in every year of the forecast period, tax has been seen to be below that projected in the last Budget for which the Conservative party was responsible. Our party has delivered stability and continuing growth, but his party is one of borrowing, boom and bust.

Kevin Brennan: Is there not a difference between a Government who borrow to invest in public services as part of the economic cycle, and a Government who borrow to waste money on unemployment because they believe that unemployment is a price worth paying?

Paul Boateng: I am afraid that that is true. That was the record of the last Conservative Government, under whom we saw some 3 million people unemployed, double-digit interest rates and double-digit inflation. At the end of their period in government, they were paying more on the amounts that they had borrowed than they were on education. Conservative Members should be ashamed of that record.

Edward Leigh: Was the Institute for Fiscal Studies right to say in its "Green Budget" that the Government would need to borrow £3 billion more than the amount predicted in the pre-Budget report owing to
	"stronger-than-forecast spending, and weaker-than-expected revenues"?

Paul Boateng: I always listen with care to anything that the hon. Gentleman says—after all, he is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I listen with care, too, to the reports and work of the IFS, because that is well worth while. Only two weeks ago, it said that the most recent public finances data were good news for the Government and that current receipts were on track to meet the Treasury's pre-Budget report forecast. Indeed, it said that current spending was moving closer in line with that outlined in the pre-Budget report. I listened to that with care, and the reality is that the Government have met their fiscal rules and will continue to do so.

Michael Jabez Foster: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor reminded us a while ago that highly indebted countries in Africa were spending more on interest than education. Given that that situation with schools and debt existed in this nation in 1997, what is the appropriate ratio today?

Paul Boateng: We are trying to ensure—and we will ensure—that we do not return to the days when borrowing was at 8 per cent. We will continue to ensure that we maintain our commitment to our fiscal rules and a programme of investment in our public services and infrastructure. That is the way in which we ensure that we continue to have growth to such an extent that we have had 50 consecutive quarterly periods of growth. That is a record to be proud of and we intend to maintain it in government.

George Osborne: Has the Chief Secretary found time this week to read the comments of the Prime Minister's former chief economic adviser, who says:
	"Brown talks a good game on wealth creation, but actually has much less idea what makes the private sector tick. Britain's economic arteries are slowly being furred up by a higher and more complicated tax system, excessive regulation and endless micro-management"?
	Does the Chief Secretary find it refreshing that the Prime Minister receives such candid advice on the Chancellor's economic policies, and will he avoid blocking Britain's economic arteries by avoiding further tax increases?

Paul Boateng: There is one answer both to the hon. Gentleman and to the former economic adviser. It is that the present Government with the present Chancellor have delivered 50 consecutive periods of growth and seen the creation of 2 million jobs, low inflation and low interest rates. A Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member would see a return to double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates and—yes, I am bound to say it—boom and bust.

Stephen McCabe: How much extra tax and borrowing are likely to be needed to deal with the wave of unemployment that will hit my constituency if it is subjected to the £54 million worth of cuts that the shadow Chancellor has threatened?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman before. The fact that I have a good memory is causing difficulties for him.

David Laws: Does the Chief Secretary recall the Chancellor saying not long ago that there are two different types of Chancellor of the Exchequer: those who fail and those who get out in time? What connection could there be between the present black hole in the public finances and today's news that the Chancellor is moving to the Foreign Office?

Paul Boateng: There is no such black hole and I am not aware that any credibility attaches to such news.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Chief Secretary aware that I am a bit of an expert on blocked arteries? I have just come back from hospital where I was told, "You have to keep with a consistent regime—stick with what is working. And one thing you must always remember is: never go back to a lousy diet"—like we had with the Tories.

Paul Boateng: I could not agree more with that recipe for good health. Long may it continue.

Gas Price Increases

Laurence Robertson: How much additional revenue the Exchequer has received due to the recent increase in gas prices.

John Healey: This year, Government revenues from North sea oil and gas are expected to increase by about £1½billion over Budget forecasts, largely because of increased oil and gas prices. However, the overall impact on public finances is likely to be more limited because of other direct and indirect effects of the higher prices.

Laurence Robertson: The industry estimates that the effect will be somewhat greater. Does the Economic Secretary agree that the best thing that we can do to ensure security of our energy supply and so that we do not become over-reliant on imported sources is to increase investor confidence, and that talk of a windfall tax—or, worse, its imposition—would destroy confidence at the very time that we need it?

John Healey: When making decisions on the North sea oil and gas taxation regime we attempt to balance a desire to promote investment with ensuring that the companies pay a proper price for the exploitation of a finite natural resource that is a national asset. When profits and prices are high, oil companies pay more tax. Next year, we expect oil companies to contribute almost £6 billion through North sea taxes alone. We have no plans to introduce a windfall tax on oil companies.

Michael Clapham: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Ofgem report produced last year suggested that one of the factors that had caused the increase in gas prices was that the companies all carried out their maintenance at the same time of the year, causing the spike. That resulted in windfall profits. If he is not prepared to go ahead with a windfall tax, will he consider encouraging those companies to put much more money into anti-fuel poverty measures?

John Healey: A number of the companies are making such contributions to relieving fuel poverty. I know that my hon. Friend plays an active role on the Trade and Industry Committee, which is looking into high oil prices. In the Treasury as much as in the Department of Trade and Industry, we look forward to the Select Committee's report in due course.

Andrew Tyrie: If Labour wins the next election, everybody knows it would put our taxes up. It has an £11 billion black hole to fill. The Chief Secretary has just confirmed to us that the IFS is well worth listening to, and it says the figure is £11 billion. Everybody knows that Labour would try and do it without people noticing. A windfall tax on oil and gas would fit Labour's bill. We have had questions this afternoon on that tax, and a refusal, point blank, to rule it out. We have had—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I give those on the Front Bench the privilege of asking a question at their request. They must ask a question, not make a speech.

Dennis Skinner: Come on, answer, professor.

Andrew Tyrie: I will take that as a compliment.
	Will the Minister go further than what he has just said, which was, "We have no plans to introduce a windfall tax"? That is exactly the form of words that the Chancellor used early in his tenure, just before he introduced new and higher taxes.

John Healey: I am not sure the hon. Gentleman heard the answer that I gave in clear terms to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). I suggest that he look at the Hansard record tomorrow.

Peter Pike: Can my hon. Friend estimate what the average family is saving, despite the increase in VAT because of prices going up, bearing in mind the fact that when we came into government VAT was 8 per cent.? The Tories intended it to be 17.5 per cent. How much has the average family benefited because of the Labour Government's policy of reducing it to 5 per cent.?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that one of the first things that we did on coming to office in 1997 was to reverse the increase in VAT that the Conservatives had put on fuel. He is right to say that householders have benefited also from the changes that we made in the competition regime for the supply of electricity and gas. Over the past couple of years UK prices have been among the lowest in Europe for gas and electricity, for industrial and for domestic consumers.

New Deal

Ronnie Campbell: If he will make a statement on public investment in the new deal.

Gordon Brown: For the £3.6 billion that has been invested in the new deal, 1.2 million men and women have been helped, with long-term unemployment down three quarters since 1997 and unemployment benefits, which cost £10 billion in 1997, now costing only £5 billion.

Ronnie Campbell: Coming from a constituency that had high unemployment under the Tories all those years ago, I can tell my right hon. Friend that the new deal has been a godsend to young people especially, and my constituency now has record low unemployment. Rather than cut the new deal, as the Tories said they would, will he sustain it, if not increase it?

Gordon Brown: We are not only retaining the new deal; we are improving it all the time. It is sad that what should have all-party support is opposed by the Conservatives and would be abolished by the Liberal party as well. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, commenting on youth unemployment, said that the programme had been effective in reducing long-term unemployment and
	"clearly many young people have been helped by this programme".
	That was not from a Labour Member, but from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh).

Eric Forth: Given that in 1996 and 1997 unemployment was falling at the rate of 50,000 a month, and given the number of immigrants who seem to be able to find jobs readily in this country, what is the point of the new deal?

Gordon Brown: We have halved unemployment since we came to power—that is the point of the new deal. More than 2 million people have been helped and we have 2 million more jobs in this country. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that the new deal is useless when unemployment has been halved just shows how out of touch the Conservative party is.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the undoubted success of the new deal is underpinned both by economic stability and by the success of schemes such as objective 1 in the south Wales valleys and the west of Wales? Will he, with me, offer congratulations on the milestone that has been passed today in Bridgend, where objective 1 funding has created almost 2,500 growth jobs, safeguarded an equal number of growth jobs and helped more than 2,800 small and medium-sized enterprises? The way forward is to continue with the new deal programme, economic stability and more funds coming in to west Wales and the valleys.

Gordon Brown: Unemployment in Wales is now lower than it has been for 30 years. One of the reasons for that is that public investment in the regional policies of the European Union and in the new deal have made it possible. I have to ask Conservative Members this: what sense does it make for them to want to abolish, as an act of dogma, a programme that is so successful?

Damian Green: Let us look at the facts. The admirable purpose of the new deal is to reduce the number of young people who are not working, training or studying. The fact is that the number of young people who are not working, training or studying has gone up since the new deal was introduced. Why does the Chancellor think that the programme is such a success, given that simple fact?

Gordon Brown: I will give the hon. Gentleman the facts. In 1985, 350,000 young people had been unemployed for more than a year; today, fewer than 5,000 are unemployed—an average of seven per constituency. The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating us, because unemployment has halved in his constituency.

Andy Burnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 2.7 per cent. unemployment rate in Greater Manchester shows that the new deal has been worth every single penny and that it contrasts sharply with the 10 per cent. plus unemployment rate that was shamefully described by the Conservatives as a price worth paying? Rather than scrapping the new deal and introducing a token £1,000 payment to 14-year-olds, will my right hon. Friend not only give a commitment to extend the new deal, but give a real push to modern apprenticeships, which are beginning to work?

Gordon Brown: I visited Manchester only a few days ago and saw how employment is increasing, how research-based industries are growing, how the university and colleges are creating new businesses and new jobs for the future, and how the new deal is having an impact That is why, when the shadow Chancellor says that to cut the new deal means painful cuts, he knows precisely what it would mean: more unemployment. Unfortunately, the Conservatives believe that unemployment is a price worth paying.

Desmond Swayne: What has happened to the disappeared young people who are not registered as unemployed, are not studying, not in training and not in full-time education of any kind? That is the key statistic.

Gordon Brown: There are more young people in work than at any time for 30 years. The hon. Gentleman does not want to face up to the fact that in his constituency and in the country youth unemployment has fallen by two thirds. He should be congratulating us and saying that in future more resources go towards helping those who remain unemployed.

Charities (VAT)

Chris Bryant: If he will recompense charities for the VAT paid on goods they sell.

Dawn Primarolo: There is VAT relief on certain goods sold by charities, including donated items and goods sold in connection with certain fund-raising events. Charities benefit from tax relief worth £2.4 billion a year.

Chris Bryant: The Treasury has, rightly, been generous over the past few years in ensuring that VAT is returned on some goods—for example, the Band Aid single—and we did not see such generosity in the 1980s. However, there is injustice in one area. We have, rightly, made it possible for many museums and galleries to open their doors free to the public, which has dramatically increased the number of people going in, but some museums and galleries still have to charge VAT on admission. Will the Treasury consider that in the months to come?

Dawn Primarolo: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in the impact of VAT on charities, particularly in his constituency. As regards museums, following a long consultation on delivering the Government's policy on free entry to museums, one aspect of the arrangements that museums requested was the ability still to reclaim VAT. That required a particular settlement within the system. If, as my hon. Friend suggests, museums wish to reopen that consideration, I shall be happy to hear their representations.

Africa Visit

Tony Cunningham: if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Africa.

Gordon Brown: In January I visited Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique and South Africa and attended a meeting of the Africa Commission.

Tony Cunningham: For far too long the problems of Africa have simply been ignored, but not any more. A main reason why Africa has been pushed to the top of the political agenda is the passion and commitment of the Chancellor himself, and I pay tribute to him for that. I am sure that on his visit my right hon. Friend saw many of the problems facing Africa, but also the tremendous potential and promise of Africa. Could he say something about that?

Gordon Brown: I thought that all parties wanted to see debt relief and progress in Africa. I hope that the Opposition will join us in wanting a solution to the debt problem and in taking measures that will unleash the potential of Africa. Over the past 10 years many African countries have achieved greater economic stability than in the past, but they have not got growth rates similar to Asian economies. That is why it is important that once and for all we deal with the debt issue, support the private investment and trading opportunities that exist in many of those countries, and help countries that are asking us for help on transparency and macro-economic policy. That is why it is also important in December to have a solution to the trade round.
	From my visit to Africa I came away with the thoughts that, yes, there is massive and terrible poverty blighting the lives of millions, people suffering from HIV/AIDS in particular, but, yes, there is also potential. To harness it, however, requires a new partnership between the richest and poorest countries.

Mark Field: What was the single most important economic lesson that the Chancellor of the Exchequer learned from his trip to Africa last month?

Gordon Brown: It is impossible for the countries that we visited to benefit from the opening up of trade unless they have the necessary infrastructure. If we cannot help them with the infrastructure in transport, communications and education in particular, it will not be possible, even with the opening of trade, for those countries to move forward in both the African and world economies. I would have thought that there would be common cause on that. To make that happen we must deal with the fundamental problems that still exist from the 1980s. They are: the need for debt relief, to fund education where we can to help countries develop, and the need to get some relationship between rich and poor countries for the development of infrastructure. In particular, I saw young people wanting their economies to move forward. They need a better partnership than we have given them in the past. I hope that all parties can join in promoting that.

Andy Reed: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor knows, there is a need for genuine joined-up work between aid, trade and debt relief. He will have learned that in particular on his visit to Africa. In the past, where we have had debt relief and debt cancellation, it has not always had the impact that we have wanted because of interactions, such as collapsing commodity prices in large parts of Africa. In terms of what he proposes as possible for the G7 and G8 this year, can he demonstrate how, by bringing them together, he can ensure that debt relief means real debt relief with a lasting impact for the poorest people in those countries?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a big interest in these issues. Eighty per cent of the debt that is now owed is owed to multilateral institutions. If they consistently require that interest payments be made over the next few years, most countries will be spending more on interest payments than on education or health. The agreements that we are making with individual countries, meaning that the money that would be paid in interest rates goes to education and health, are an important first step in helping economic as well as social renewal. There are also debts, interestingly enough, owed to Libya, Romania and eastern European countries. We must also find a solution to what is called the non-Paris Club debt.
	I believe that there is sufficient good will in the international community and I hope that over the next few months we all will urge all countries to reach a settlement of this issue, which is outstanding from the 1980s. That will make it possible for some of the countries that I visited and other countries to spend resources that they need to spend on tackling terrible and difficult problems of illiteracy, disease and suffering.

Corporation Tax

David Heathcoat-Amory: What estimate he made in his 2004 Budget forecast of corporation tax receipts in 2004–05; and what his latest estimate is.

Paul Boateng: Corporation tax forecasts were provided in the pre-Budget report. Updated forecasts will be provided in the Budget.

David Heathcoat-Amory: How does the Chief Secretary answer the Treasury Committee's criticism that this is the fourth year in a row that the Treasury has overestimated tax receipts? Indeed, the loss of revenue is now £37.7 billion in total for those four years. What tax increases are the Government planning to make up the tax gap?

Paul Boateng: The right hon. Gentleman well knows, and I believe that the Treasury Committee accepts, that our overall record on forecasting is good. As he knows from being in government, corporation tax growth is only one element of receipts forecasts. Receipts from income tax, national insurance and VAT—the three largest taxes—have come in broadly as expected in Budget 2004. There is no reason to believe that our forecasts for corporation tax will not be realised. Indeed, they are on track to being realised, as the December figures show.

Jim Cousins: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Britain's corporation tax revenues are under relentless attack from several multinational companies and the global accountancy firms' mass production of tax avoidance? Is he determined to mount a robust defence of Britain's corporation tax revenues in the face of that? Will he co-operate with tax authorities in Germany and the United States that seem to be engaged in a similar battle?

Paul Boateng: As my hon. Friend recognises, we are working closely with the countries that he mentioned. He will be aware of the activities of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and her agenda of ensuring that we bear down heavily on tax avoidance. We want fairness and we are achieving that with our programmes of taxation reform.

European Union

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on prospects for the European Union in the next year.
	Twelve months ago, I made several proposals to the House to improve the way in which the Government are held to account for the conduct of European Union business. One was the publication of regular White Papers on "Prospects for the European Union", the first of which I published in April last year. As with the White Papers that I published on the EU constitution negotiations, I hope that hon. Members feel that the fuller and more timely information on EU business has helped to stimulate wider debate and discussion. Such discussion shapes and strengthens the Government's position in European negotiations. Consistent with the pledges that I made last year, I have published White Paper Cm. 6450, which sets out the prospects for the European Union in 2005. Copies have been available from the Vote Office since 9.30 this morning.
	Let me highlight three of the main areas of work that the White Paper covers: enhancing prosperity across Europe and in this country; working together to tackle common threats to our security; and preparations for the United Kingdom's presidency of the EU in the second half of this year.
	In the European Union, Britain is part of the world's largest common market of 450 million consumers. That gives new opportunities to our businesses, greater choice and quality to British consumers and boosts jobs and growth here and across Europe. However, there is much more to do to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from that single market by pursuing further liberalisation and reform.
	We will therefore continue negotiating a directive to liberalise services across the EU. Services account for approximately 70 per cent. of the EU's output, but only 20 per cent. of its trade. Creating a true single market in that sector would boost growth in the EU and improve the price, choice and quality of services on offer to businesses and consumers. The Government are also working for better implementation and enforcement of the financial services action plan, which offers great benefits in another sector where this country is especially strong.
	We are also working to ensure that EU law—so vital for the operation of the single market—is the most effective possible for business. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced 12 months ago, the Government have been working closely with the Irish, Dutch and Luxembourg presidencies on regulatory reform in Europe. We have now extended that team work to include the Austrians and Finns, who follow us in the EU presidency next year.
	I also greatly welcome the strong lead from Commission President Barroso, whose five-year plan published on 26 January made it clear that better regulation is a priority for the new Commission. We will be working with the Commission to ensure that we have a better assessment of the impact of new proposals and systematic reviews of existing EU legislation.
	The White Paper also highlights the continuing negotiations on the European Union's budget. The Government are working especially with Germany, France, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden to ensure that future EU budgets are limited to 1 per cent. of Europe's economic output and that that money is spent where it most adds value. We also continue to make it clear that the United Kingdom's budget abatement remains fully justified. We, like all other countries, have a veto on any changes proposed in that area.
	As well as dealing with the economic aspects of our EU membership, the White Paper also sets out many areas in which our common work in Europe makes the United Kingdom safer and more secure. It shows how we are improving co-operation between police forces and other authorities so as better to tackle international organised crime and terrorism across national borders. It highlights our work to ensure that European measures to stop asylum shopping and to create a level playing field on asylum across the whole of the EU are properly implemented and evaluated. It also describes work on concluding readmission agreements with countries outside the European Union.
	The coming year will be an important one for the EU's crisis management and aid operations, which make a direct contribution to our own security. The largest European Union mission to date will help to build stability in Bosnia, under a British commander, Major-General David Leakey. EU police missions will continue to work in Bosnia, Macedonia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A new European defence agency, under a British chief executive, Nick Witney, will increase Europe's capacity more quickly to deploy effective forces in response to international crises and ensure that they can work better together.
	The Government will continue to play a leading part, along with our colleagues in France and Germany, in Europe's efforts to ensure that Iran's nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes alone. What we have achieved to date, with Iran suspending the processes that could produce fuel for a nuclear bomb, demonstrates the value of this common approach.
	The EU is the largest provider of development assistance in the world. As well as delivering Europe's contribution to reconstruction in the areas hit by the tsunami in Asia, we will work to strengthen the European Union's work to support Africa—one of our key G8 priorities.
	As I have mentioned, the United Kingdom will hold the presidency of the European Union from 1 July this year. Our presidency will focus on the themes of security, stability and prosperity, both within the European Union and outside. Africa and climate change—the priorities of our concurrent presidency of the G8—will be important parts of that EU agenda. We will continue to push for economic reform and better regulation in Europe to deliver long-term improvements in growth. We will also steer preparations for the next stage in the world trade negotiations.
	This White Paper makes clear, as did its predecessors, the central importance for the United Kingdom of our work throughout, and with, the European Union. It also shows Britain delivering in Europe—delivering because we are engaged with our partners on issues that no country can tackle alone. This Government are proud to have put Britain back where we belong—not carping from the sidelines, but a leading power in Europe. We are winning clear benefits for British consumers, British businesses and British families in areas that make a real difference to their lives.
	Through Europe, we are increasing Britain's power and influence in the world. Our approach has helped us to deliver the European Union's greatest ever enlargement and agreement to historic membership negotiations with Turkey, which will begin in October under our presidency. It has got us a European Commission that has made jobs, growth and better regulation a top priority. It has also got us European defence arrangements that work with, not against, NATO, and European co-operation on foreign policy that is again delivering significant results, not least those that we saw recently in Ukraine.
	Again thanks to this Government's approach, we have delivered a constitutional treaty that every other country in Europe is calling a great British success. I look forward to debating the facts of that treaty, not the myths of the Conservative party, in the months ahead.
	Ten years ago, this country was isolated in Europe. Today, we are where we belong: leading reform in Europe and working together to enhance Britain's prosperity and power. That is the difference between this Government and those who want to detach us from Europe—a difference that is clear from this White Paper. We are confident about Britain's future in Europe and determined to continue shaping that future in the interests of businesses and individuals across the United Kingdom. I commend the White Paper to the House.

Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and, I must say, for very short advance sight of it.
	I am puzzled by the reasons for this statement. The publication of the first such White Paper on 20 April last year was merely announced in passing by the Prime Minister in a wider statement explaining his somersault on the referendum. No detailed explanation was given to Parliament. Why is this statement needed today, particularly as the Foreign Secretary had nothing new to say? Is not the reason that the Government are involved in a taxpayer-subsidised propaganda exercise to try to sell the new EU to the country in advance of the forthcoming referendum and general election?
	The Foreign Secretary refers somewhat disingenuously in his introduction to the White Paper to stimulating
	"closer and deeper involvement of . . . the general public, in EU affairs".
	Can he explain how, in the course of that stimulation, the general public are to become more closely and deeply involved in European affairs? This document, replete—extraordinarily—with five and a half pages of a glossary of Euro-speak, is in truth designed to lull the British people into a false sense of security.
	Let me give one example. At page 5, the White Paper claims that the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe
	"will make Europe . . . easier to understand".
	Yet the Government last week had to publish a commentary of 500 pages to try to explain this easy and simple constitution to the British people. Who are they trying to kid?
	One or two matters of detail arise out of this White Paper. Is there really a need for a "new European Gender Institute", referred to on page 14, in paragraph 37? What on earth is wrong with our Equal Opportunities Commission? Is this not yet another example of unnecessary European interference and empire building? Will not this new institute duplicate work to be carried out by yet another new European institution, the human rights agency, to which paragraph 63 refers?
	While we are on that agency, why did the Commission, in its recent consultation paper, refer to it not as the human rights agency but as "the Fundamental Rights Agency"? What is the difference? Are the Government merely trying to hide the implications of the inclusion of the charter of fundamental rights, which they have tried so hard over the last few months to play down? Does not paragraph 51 confirm a further encroachment of the EU into areas of fundamental national jurisdiction, namely matters of criminal justice? Does not that fly in the face of previous Government promises that such matters would remain outside Community competence?
	At paragraph 56, does not the support of qualified majority voting in matters of immigration and asylum fly in the face of the Prime Minister's boast in 1997 to the House, in relation to QMV, that
	"we secured unanimity in all the areas where we wanted it, such as immigration".—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 319.]
	Given that the Government have opted into every directive on asylum, is not the assertion in that same paragraph that the
	"UK . . . retains the right not to participate in EU asylum . . . provisions"
	meaningless?  
	At paragraph 81, the Foreign Secretary refers to the work that he was doing in Iran. Why is his view of Iran so different from that expressed by the President of the United States in his State of the Union address last night? Has he taken into account, for instance, the reports in today's newspapers that Ukraine has in the past sold long-range missiles to Iran? While we are on the subject of Ukraine, why is the Foreign Secretary so lukewarm about Ukraine's attempts to open negotiations to become part of the European Union?
	Paragraph 85 deals with EU-China. Precisely what improvements in China's human rights record since Tiananmen square justify the Government's current support for the lifting of the arms embargo?
	Page 11 makes much of the Lisbon agenda. We have long warned that that agenda could easily become all about failed targets and today we see with regret how right we were. Halfway through the 10-year programme, little has been achieved and, as the White Paper itself acknowledges, the prosperity and productivity gap in relation to the United States is widening. In the White Paper, the Government describe that as "falling short of expectations". In the "EUobserver" on 2 February, Wim Kok described the goal of the agenda as "a bridge too far". But was not Romano Prodi nearer the truth last October when he described it quite simply as "a big failure"? Yet the White Paper merely promises more of the same.
	Is it not the case that the real engine of prosperity and growth is deregulation, competition and a genuinely free market? Is it not also the case that the social model acts as a break on that engine, and is that not why the EU is failing economically? Yet the White Paper offers a lot more talk and no action.
	The Foreign Secretary knows well that the prospects for the EU in the coming year will remain uncertain until the outcome of the EU-wide process of ratification of the constitution is known. Yet now we hear that the Government intend to put off the referendum in this country until the latest possible date next year. Prolonging the uncertainty can only be bad for the EU. Why do the Government not have the courage of their convictions and hold the referendum now? Why do they not realise that this country will have no part in the constitution, and begin to build an EU that will work for its peoples rather than its elites?
	After May, when we are on the other side of the House, we will waste no time in clearing up this uncertainty.

Jack Straw: The self-deprecating smile on the face of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as he mouthed his last point said it all. It was clear that not even he believes such nonsense. One reason why he does not believe it is that, as someone who throughout his political career—until he became deputy leader of the Conservative party—was an ardent supporter of Britain in Europe who not only voted for Maastricht but spoke up for it, he knows very well that Europe above all other issues has wrecked the Tory party and removed its prospects of power for well over a decade.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why the statement was needed. I refer him to a statement I made early last year, when I told the House that in my judgment the British Government ought to be more accountable to the House for what they do in regard to European Union business. I made a series of proposals, one of which was regular publication of these White Papers and an oral statement to accompany those published annually. That is why I am here now, and I find it astonishing that he is running so scared of the facts about our record in Europe that he does not want the issue to be discussed.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the new gender institute. Of all the issues that he could have highlighted, he fixed on that one. I will tell him why the institute is needed. Even the Conservatives' policy for the European Union accepts the free movement of workers and of people. That means that in increasing numbers—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about this, so I am trying to explain. In increasing numbers, British workers will be working abroad. If they happen to be women, they ought to be entitled to the same protection that they can enjoy here. I should have thought that that was commendable, not a matter for regret.
	The same applies to the human rights agency. No, it will not duplicate the work of our own agencies. Indeed, we are far more advanced in terms of gender equality— as we are in terms of race and religious relations—than most, if not all, other European countries. However, it is of great value to our people abroad to be able to secure some minimal protection if they are subject to gender or racial discrimination.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about judicial co-operation and our signature to the Amsterdam treaty. The terms of that treaty were made very clear when the House debated it in 1997. I think that the Conservatives tried to make that and Nice the great election issue in 2001, and they got the answer that they deserved from the British electorate.
	I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman why we need QMV on aspects of asylum and immigration policy. Back in the early 1990s, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) signed up to a convention that became Dublin I. It had to be agreed unanimously and it was crazy to sign it, because, although it did not come into force until 1997, it was binding and prevented us from maintaining our bilateral agreement with France to return asylum seekers and illegal immigrants who had travelled through France.
	There is no point in the Leader of the Opposition weeping about that decision, which was his responsibility. I tried to get the convention changed, but it took a very long time, because one or two countries proposed vetoing that change. QMV allowed us to make the change, and we now have returns agreements, and the same is true of the Eurodac fingerprinting convention. If the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) wants better to control immigration and asylum into this country, he must understand that we need co-operation with our European partners, a level playing field and, above all, to be able to change the law in our favour, but he is setting his face against all those things.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes asked about our position on Iran. In case he has not noticed, the British Government and the British Parliament are responsible for our foreign policy—I noted the implication of his remarks. Every single decision that France, Germany and the United Kingdom have made has been endorsed unanimously by the governing body of the International Atomic Energy Agency, on which the United States and others sit.
	Finally and most absurdly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that progress on Lisbon has not been as good as it should have been—I am glad that he has read that section of the White Paper—but then said that the European Union should secure more liberalisation, greater deregulation, better competition and a genuinely free market. What on earth does he think that the Lisbon agenda is about, if not deregulation, greater competition and a genuinely free market? Some people in the European single market are behind the action, which is why we have worked hard and successfully to get a Commission that represents our vision of the future and that will actively pursue the Lisbon agenda, which did not happen under the previous Commission.

Menzies Campbell: I commend the practice of the regular publication of these White Papers. So far as the Government recognise the imperative need for progress on the single market and the Lisbon agreement, they will undoubtedly have our support.
	I urge the Foreign Secretary not to ignore the reform of the common agricultural policy, particularly with regard to access for third world countries, and especially those in Africa.
	On China, I part company with the Foreign Secretary. How can lifting the arms embargo, which was imposed after the events in Tiananmen square, be justified given the scope of human rights abuses in China, including the detention of thousands of political prisoners, which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office itself has described as a matter of serious concern? The Foreign Secretary visited Washington last week, and will be aware that political opposition to lifting the embargo exists across the board, and I hope that he will reconsider the position.
	We have consistently supported the Foreign Secretary on Iran. What is the status of the current negotiations on a long-term agreement with Iran? When the Foreign Secretary meets the new Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, tomorrow, will he impress upon her the validity of the European Union's approach?
	Finally, on the constitutional treaty, I share the Foreign Secretary's keen sense of anticipation about the forthcoming debate. Does he agree that the campaign for an affirmative vote in that referendum should begin as soon as possible?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his opening remarks. Beginning at paragraph 39, the White Paper includes a good section on the need to reform the CAP. We want to see progress on the reform of the EU sugar regime, which, as the White Paper states, is the most archaic regime in the CAP and costs EU consumers an estimated £3.2 billion each year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may know, and Conservative Members may not, that we have been able to secure reforms of the CAP only as a result of QMV.
	On the EU arms embargo on China, neither the European Council nor the General Affairs Council has made a decision. At the December meeting of the European Council—the summit of Heads of State, Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers—good conclusions were agreed. Among other things, the conclusions stated that if the embargo is lifted, no quantitative or qualitative increase in arms sales by any European Union country to China should occur. I will be happy to debate that matter at greater length at an appropriate moment, Mr. Speaker.
	Since 1989, there has been some change for the better on human rights in China, but the change has not gone far enough by any means. We continually raise that point with China, and I raised it when I was there two weeks ago. We have set out our view of the current state of human rights in China in a comprehensive human rights report. The big difference is that since 1989, and following initiatives by my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the EU now has a comprehensive arms control regime, which it did not have before. The truth of the matter is that almost all the refusals of licences have been made under the comprehensive arms control regime code of conduct, and not under the embargo, which is narrowly focused and does not include, for example, fighter avionics, which is key high-tech equipment.
	Conversely, in all but two rather trivial cases, all cases of refusal under the embargo would have been refused under the code of conduct in any event. We are seeking to strengthen the code of conduct in any agreement that is reached, so that the arrangement is more transparent and allows much better knowledge in both this House and across Europe of what other countries are doing in terms of arms sales.
	On Iran, following the decisions made in the middle of November, which were endorsed by the IAEA board, three working parties are currently in discussions with the Iranians. As soon as there is anything to report, I will make it available to the House.
	On the constitutional treaty, I, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, look forward to the Second Reading of the European Union Bill next week.

Kevin McNamara: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and particularly his comments about the constitutional treaty. The fundamental human rights agency is a new institution that was not subject to any discussions when the constitution was debated. If the new institution will deal purely and simply with the human rights implications of Community law, it will be welcome because it will fill a gap in general human rights law in Europe. If, however, its powers are to be extended so that it seeks to take over the role currently fulfilled by the Council of Europe, it will lead to dangerous duplication and two standards of human rights in Europe.
	During the UK presidency of the EU, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the statute that is currently being debated, discussed and drawn up is minimalist in its aim and ensures proper human rights within European institutions, but does not extend beyond that.

Jack Straw: The proposal for a human rights agency has nothing to do with the draft constitution.

Kevin McNamara: It is a new institution.

Jack Straw: It is, of course, a new institution. I accept my hon. Friend's concerns about duplication with the Council of Europe, which has also been a concern of ours in drafting the constitution. He will be familiar with the articles that ensure that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the statements in the European convention on human rights are not overturned by the charter of fundamental rights within the constitution.
	I will be happy to follow up my hon. Friend's final point and discuss it with him.

Angela Browning: I notice that the Foreign Secretary is going for "better" regulation. We all recall that his Government set up a Better Regulation Task Force when they first took office, but they quickly abandoned it because it was not effective. Why does he not go for less regulation instead of "better", and why does he not remove the EU's competences over regulation in this country? British businesses, particularly small ones, might then feel that something is happening.

Jack Straw: Better regulation in many cases means less regulation, which is why I emphasised in my statement that part of the agenda that we, like other presidencies, will follow during our presidency is to ensure not only that there is real focus on new draft regulations, but a systematic process for eliminating unnecessary regulation. However, there are circumstances in which it is in the interests of British business and individuals for better regulation in a discrete area to mean new regulation. Indeed, one can think of a number of such circumstances. It is very easy for people simply to dismiss regulation, but without it, there would be no health and safety at work and we would be back to the situation that existed at the beginning of the 19th century. If that is the view—

Mark Simmonds: Rubbish!

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but such measures depend on regulation. The single market, which is very much to the benefit of British business, depends not only on regulations but on their enforcement across Europe. Ours is the country and economy that has most benefited from access to a free market in Europe. We have to ensure that regulation is better, and in many cases that means less regulation, but in some cases it means new regulation.

Eric Illsley: As my right hon. Friend knows, the situation in Cyprus has stalled following the Republic's rejection of the Annan V plan. Some of us fear that, in the light of that rejection, Cyprus might try to veto certain aspects of European Union business and the negotiations with Turkey. Given that Turkey has influenced the Republic's decision to reject Annan V by, for example, stationing 35,000 troops in the north—there is also the question of property rights in that region—could my right hon. Friend use this October's negotiations with Turkey to try to find some common ground by persuading it to remove its troops from the north and to reach some accommodation with Cyprus?

Jack Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, this is a very sensitive issue for both the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. There was talk before the December Council of a possible veto by Cyprus, but in the event, following some very difficult negotiations, all members of the Council unanimously agreed a date of this October for negotiations with Turkey to begin. For the future, both Cyprus and Turkey look forward to one product of Turkey's ultimate accession and membership being complete normalisation of its relations with Cyprus, including recognition of that state. But there are strong feelings on both sides about this issue, and there has to be a process that secures consent from each side. We are actively encouraging that process.

David Heathcoat-Amory: How can the Foreign Secretary talk yet again about the need for regulatory reform while the European Commission continues to do the exact opposite? For instance, is he aware that the European Standing Committee has just debated a new EU proposal requiring employers to carry out risk assessments of, and to provide information and training on the problems associated with, exposure to outdoor light? The British Government regarded such a proposal as unnecessary, but it is subject to majority voting. How can we take the Foreign Secretary seriously? He talks about regulatory reform, but the culture of the EU continues to be one of yet more regulations, higher taxes, higher unemployment and low growth.

Jack Straw: I am very happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman about the merits of this regulation—[Interruption.] I understand from a sedentary comment that the argument in favour of it relates to skin cancer. As is often the case, we hear a parody of the purpose of such regulations. A moment ago, Opposition Front Benchers launched a ridiculous attack on women's rights, instead of understanding that half the population of Europe are women, who would perhaps like their rights to be protected.
	On the wider issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, there has been a sea change in the Commission's culture, which is reflected in its new membership and in the clear policy direction given not only by President Barroso but, for example, by Peter Mandelson. In a very good article in today's edition of the Financial Times, Peter Mandelson sets out his and the Commission's vision for ensuring that EU regulation is lighter and more effective.

Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend said in his statement that Africa would be an important part of the European Union's agenda. Is there not an important spillover from the public's response to the tsunami appeals and their willingness to see poverty in Africa tackled? Should we not take the highest ground possible on these matters, and is it not time for an international tax on currency speculation? Many African nations argue for the need for a form of Marshall aid. We might be able to secure a form of Straw aid, which might be more significant than that term would suggest.

Jack Straw: I agree very much with my hon. Friend's more general statement. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a number of serious reservations about the proposed Tobin tax, which I share.

Martin Smyth: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement and the publication of the White Paper. On security, is he aware that there are still some gaps in the extradition arrangements between the various European Union countries? For example, Spain refused to extradite a criminal to Dublin, and Belgium refused to extradite a particular individual to the United Kingdom. Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that in the fight against international terrorism and criminality, he will aim to tighten up such arrangements?

Jack Straw: Yes, I can. Frankly, extradition ought to be a very straightforward issue within Europe. I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration with the system, which frustrated me when I was Home Secretary. I offer my personal commitment on this issue, and that of my right hon. Friend the current Home Secretary.

Gordon Prentice: I heard Viktor Yushchenko tell the Council of Europe in Strasbourg last week that Ukraine's bid for EU membership would be decided not in Brussels but in Kiev. Does my friend agree with that, and what are the prospects of Ukraine's joining the EU?

Jack Straw: Yes, and Mr. Yushchenko made the very important point that the EU is a union of independent nation states. So of course, the fundamental decision as to whether Ukraine is to apply for EU membership, and whether it achieves that, will be made by Ukrainians themselves in Kiev.

Michael Fabricant: Although France, Germany and the United Kingdom have been negotiating, as the Foreign Secretary said, with Iran about its development of nuclear weapons, the United States Government still think that Iran has withheld information from us and that it is heading towards developing such weapons. Given that China is supplying, for example, Silkworm missiles to Iran, does not the EU's decision to consider lifting the arms embargo send out all the wrong signals?

Jack Straw: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. No such decision has yet been made by the EU and if one is, it will be made only on the strictest conditions and with a very significant improvement in the current code of conduct—including, for the first time, real transparency on arms sales on the part of every single member of the EU. The hon. Gentleman says that the United States complains that Iran has withheld information; so do we. Indeed, that is the basis of the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors' original decision to declare that Iran was non-compliant with its safeguards agreement. I recently published a detailed command paper for the benefit of the House, setting out the ways in which Iran has been in breach. But I would also argue very strongly that the negotiations in which France, Germany and I are involved are the best way forward in trying to bring Iran back into compliance.

Andrew Dismore: May I raise with my right hon. Friend the two draft regulations proposed by the Commission on financial aid to the Turkish Cypriots and the direct trade regulation? Those two have been linked together, but the first is non-contentious, and it is agreed by everyone that the Turkish Cypriots should have €259 million of aid. The second, however, is extremely contentious, protectionist and does little to advance the interests of the Cypriots as a whole, whereas a more free trade approach would. Will my right hon. Friend consider de-linking the two, so that Turkish Cypriots can secure the financial aid quickly while we attempt to apply more sensible trading arrangements on the island, particularly the option of making green line regulation more effective?

Jack Straw: We want the financial aid to reach the Turkish Cypriots as quickly as possible. It is initially for the Commission to make proposals about the linkage or otherwise of the regulations, but I would add that I was present at the General Affairs Council on 26 April last year, when a package of proposals, including these regulations to benefit northern Cyprus, was unanimously agreed. That is not for a moment the same as recognising northern Cyprus as a separate state, but it will benefit the northern Cypriots and it acknowledges that they voted in substantial numbers in favour of the Annan plan. It is a matter of great regret that both the regulations have, in practice, been blocked by one member state since then.

Jenny Tonge: I was surprised and somewhat disappointed that, in his comments on the prospects for the European Union, the Foreign Secretary made no mention at all of the middle east peace process. Does he agree that peace in the middle east is crucial to the war on terrorism and the future prospects for peace in the world? Will he clarify what the EU is going to do this year to put pressure on Israel, in particular, to move the peace process forward?

Jack Straw: The White Paper has been available in the Vote Office for the last three hours, which is a modernisation proposal that I thoroughly support—

Denis MacShane: Oh!

Jack Straw: I am grateful for that loyal approbation from my deputy. It has been noticed.
	The White Paper is available and paragraph 84 spells out the key points. My statement was a brief summary of what appears there. The EU is doing a lot in respect of the middle east. Javier Solana, the EU special representative on foreign policy, will be present at the London meeting on 1 March that we are hosting, in order better to support the Palestinians as the withdrawal from Gaza takes place. I would like to see the House have a full debate on the middle east, but the truth is that the Government of Israel have moved a long way in recent months. Some quite remarkable things are now happening in respect of better co-operation between the Israelis and Palestinians. We are supporting that process and so, too, is the EU.

Jane Griffiths: I welcome the White Paper's commitment to continuing reform of the common agricultural policy. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the petition for Africa, signatures for which are being collected in large numbers by churches and individuals in my constituency and, of course, elsewhere? Does he support the aim of the petition—to divert unfair subsidies for European farmers towards poverty alleviation in Africa?

Jack Straw: I am aware of the petition, though I also know of some reservations about its detailed wording. The exercise is an excellent one and I fully support it. It is one of the democratic improvements that appears in the constitutional treaty.

Michael Weir: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that many people in Scotland are generally favourable to the European Union, but find it absolutely impossible to support the constitution, not least because fishing is included as an exclusive competence under article I-12. Will the Foreign Secretary make any attempts to change the treaty prior to its being put to a referendum?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman knows that one votes either for or against a treaty. He should recall—I certainly do—the European parliamentary elections last June, in which his party majored on the issue of the common fisheries policy and got a bloody nose as a result.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend referred in his statement to economic issues, but did not mention the most serious economic problem in Europe. I mean the weakness of the eurozone, which exhibits continuing low growth and high unemployment. It is evidence of serious mistakes in macro-economic policy and problems can only be exacerbated by the recent strengthening of the euro in relation to the dollar. That underlines, I believe, Britain's wisdom in staying out of the eurozone, but does my right hon. Friend agree that if something is not done to improve the performance of the eurozone, it could cause long-term damage to Europe and, indeed, over time, to the British economy?

Jack Straw: The generalisation about the alleged weakness of the eurozone disguises very significant variation within different member states, ranging from countries that are doing very well to those that are not doing well at all. It is important that my hon. Friend bears that in mind. It is true that some countries in the eurozone have serious structural problems connected with the inflexibility of their labour markets, which is holding back growth. Other countries, however, have seized the opportunities provided by greater transparency of the euro and are doing very well indeed. The generalisations are dangerous. My hon. Friend will also know that in Germany, the largest single economy in Europe, Chancellor Schröder and Vice-Chancellor Fischer have courageously embarked on a major programme of economic and social reform. That is causing some pain for the moment, but I am confident that it will lead to precisely the same benefits of greater flexibility that we have seen in this country.

Desmond Swayne: How will the European defence agency achieve the fine-sounding objectives that the Foreign Secretary set out, when the reality is that our European partners continue to cut their defence expenditure and commitments? Is not it all just posturing?

Jack Straw: Some do, some do not. One of the exercises that we are involved in is to push European countries to increase their defence spending. We are more likely to achieve that, by the way, through being engaged with them than by carping from the sidelines. In any event, the European defence agency will help to improve efficiencies and interoperability, not least because it has an excellent British official at its head.

Mark Lazarowicz: It has been suggested that, in putting growth and competitiveness at the top of its agenda, the new Commission is putting on the sidelines the EU's commitment to tackling climate change. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not allow that to happen, given the evidence that is produced almost daily about the effects of climate change? Does he agree that tackling climate change must be at the heart of EU policy, along with the growth and competitiveness agenda, and that the issue should be a priority for the UK—not just for the six-month presidency period later in the year, but during the next few months in the run-up to it, too?

Jack Straw: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of climate change, but I see no evidence whatever that the Commission is back-pedalling on it. Europe is in the lead on climate change. When Russia signed up to Kyoto, it meant that Kyoto would come into force, and one main factor that influenced Russia was the strong representation made by several countries, including France and Germany, to encourage the country to do so. One of the arguments used was that controlling climate change does not lead to lower growth, but helps to sustain our economic prospects in the medium and long term.

Vincent Cable: What is the Government's reaction to the strange comments made yesterday by Mr. Barroso, the President of the Commission? In the middle of an otherwise very helpful set of comments on services liberalisation, he endorsed the concept of social dumping, which has been imported from the most reactionary and protectionist elements in France to justify restrictions on trade with low-income countries with necessarily lower wages and working conditions. How do the British Government react to that?

Jack Straw: Happily, I was not aware of that remark by President Barroso, so I have no need to comment on it in too much detail. I will look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman, but I have to say that President Barroso and his Commission have made a brilliant start and will continue as they have begun.

Chris Bryant: On two key areas of international policy—the middle east peace process and Iran—the UK has played an important role in ensuring that Europe's position does not contradict that of the US but complements it. Does the Foreign Secretary believe that he will be able to do the same with respect to China?

Jack Straw: Yes, I do. We work extremely hard in co-operation with both the US and our EU partners. Sometimes we may have a difference of view with some of our EU partners, and that was very evident in respect of Iraq. On other occasions—but far less frequently, in fact—there are some issues over which there is a difference of emphasis with our partners in the US. However, by a process of discussion and co-operation, we can usually arrive at a consensus. When we do, we are much the stronger for it.

Business of the House

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Peter Hain: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 7 February—Remaining stages of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill.
	Tuesday 8 February—Opposition day [4th allotted day]. There will be a debate on climate change and the environment, followed by a debate on tackling the causes of crime. Both debates arise on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. There will then be a motion to approve the third report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
	Wednesday 9 February—Second Reading of the European Union Bill.
	Thursday 10 February—Remaining stages of the Identity Cards Bill.
	Friday 11 February—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week after the half-term recess will include:
	Monday 21 February—Remaining stages of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill.
	Tuesday 22 February—Motions relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2005 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2005, followed by remaining stages of the Drugs Bill.
	Wednesday 23 February—Opposition day [5th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Thursday 24 February
	Friday 25 February—Private Members' Bills.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business. He will obviously have in mind a date for a Northern Ireland elections Bill. It would be helpful if the Bill were to be published. It may be controversial, but what is the timetable for publication?
	Given the deteriorating security situation in Northern Ireland following the recent IRA statement, does the Leader of the House know whether the Secretary Of State for Defence has the intention to reconsider the cuts that he made in the number of infantry battalions based there? Are we likely to have a statement on that in the coming week? He will know that, at the time that those cuts were made, Opposition Members, and indeed many hon. Members throughout the House, pointed out that they were premature and would place more pressure on the defence budget.
	The Public Administration Committee report issued today suggests giving Parliament much more control over inquiries such as that into the former Home Secretary. Can we expect an early response? Clearly, Parliament needs to be treated with more respect than has been shown recently to our Select Committees.
	Will the Leader of the House make a statement about parliamentary conventions? Two weeks ago, the Government wanted to change the convention that constitutional Bills are debated on the Floor of the House, but ultimately relented. The Deputy Prime Minister was given the Environmental Audit Committee report entitled "Housing: Building a Sustainable Future" early, and subject to a press embargo for Sunday. On Saturday, however, he showed total brass neck by ignoring the embargo in order to attack the report. As The Guardian put it:
	"Mr. Prescott took the unusual step of reacting to the report a day before it was even due to be released."
	The Labour Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee ignored the convention that the Chairman supports the status quo when he voted to reverse that Committee's request to sit in public. The tied vote then went in favour of those who oppose open government. The Leader of the House himself told us how much he welcomed the original request. He said:
	"I very much welcome the European Scrutiny Committee's decision . . . Indeed I do. In fact, I would like to see greater scrutiny". [Official Report, 15 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 970.]
	Is it not time that the Leader of the House condemned those who wish to go back to the bad, old-fashioned secrecy that has cloaked European scrutiny here? Surely we can rely on him to support such a modest piece of modernisation?
	Finally, can we debate the Environmental Audit Committee report itself, which is also referred to in early-day motion 626,
	[That this House expresses its deep concern at the plans to impose massive house building on Hertfordshire; notes that such plans are based on the Government's Sustainable Communities Plan launched by the Deputy Prime Minister; congratulates the Environmental Audit Committee on its report Housing: Building a Sustainable Future, which attacks the Government's plans as not adequately considering the environmental impacts of the proposed increase in house building, with the environment as principal loser, as establishing the principal role of planning as being simply to meet market demand without regard to democratic accountability, as not having an adequate evidence base, as not referring to environmental protection, as making efforts towards sustainability that are little more than window dressing and as likely to result in a dramatic increase in the number of properties flooded; calls on the Government to undertake the research recommended by the Committee to amend its plans to take account of the environmental impacts and not to take forward the current misconceived proposals, which would lead to overdevelopment in Hertfordshire and other parts of the South East and East, and to traffic congestion, train overcrowding and undue pressure on all local services; and condemns the Government for pressing ahead with this plan even though the East of England Regional Assembly has withdrawn its support.]?
	The report attacks the Deputy Prime Minister's massive house building plans in the south-east for ignoring the environmental impacts of such building and ignoring democratic accountability. It states that it is likely to lead to a
	"dramatic increase in the number of properties flooded".
	That is what that Labour-dominated Committee found. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that Hertfordshire, my own county, and other counties do not want to become a concrete wasteland to be known as "Prescottshire"?

Peter Hain: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that carefully manufactured soundbite, but that is about all that I can say for his contribution. As for the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I can tell him that two thirds of all new dwellings in England in 2002 and 2003 were built on brownfield sites. That compares with 56 per cent. in 1997. The intention is to use existing brownfield sites wherever possible, and to protect the green belt. We also intend to proceed with more affordable housing by using Government land where possible, so that the main cost borne by homeowners is the cost of their home.
	That approach compares with Conservative proposals to cut the funding for housing massively, as part of the £35 billion in cuts that they hope to make. The hon. Gentleman ought to reflect on that, as voters in the south-east and elsewhere will have to decide between a Labour Government who invest in new housing, mostly on brownfield sites, providing opportunities for new homeowners, and a Conservative party that would cut all that support, and take it away from first-time buyers in particular.
	On the Northern Ireland elections Bill, we would like to publish it as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter for discussion through the usual channels, and that it is being discussed in the House of Lords at present.
	I agree that the IRA's statement is very regrettable, but it would be "premature"—to quote the hon. Gentleman—to start reconfiguring the infantry in Northern Ireland. It is very important to keep the peace process on track, and I hope that Opposition Front-Bench Members, for once under their current leadership, will back the Government in that regard. That would contrast with their usual practice of continually undermining and sniping away at the peace process.
	On the Public Administration Committee report, the Government will give a response in due course.
	The hon. Gentleman will know that there was an argument about the Constitutional Reform Bill, but that that was resolved satisfactorily in the end. Indeed, he and I had a constructive conversation about the matter. However, I remind him that, on the second day in Committee, no Conservative Member was present at one stage of the debate. It is therefore very hard to tell quite why there was such a hoo-hah about providing extra time, given the sheer indifference among Conservative Members to that important matter.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the European Scrutiny Committee. He will know that the Committee reconsidered the matter last week. I understand that the vote was tied, with 12 hon. Members voting. After that, the Chairman voted and it was decided that the Committee should meet in private—at least for some sittings. The Committee meets in public when it takes evidence, and I have attended in various capacities to give evidence to the Committee. The evidence that I gave was always on the record, and given in public.
	However, the Committee's vote needs to be respected by the House. It involved 12 hon. Members, whereas previously just five had voted. That was against the wishes of the Chairman, who thought that there should be proper representation.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Environmental Audit Committee report, and suggested that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister had transgressed the normal protocols. As I understand the matter, that did not happen. I am advised that he was responding to a report of a leak when the question to which the hon. Gentleman referred was put to him. I think he is entitled to do that. If he or any other Cabinet Minister is challenged on the record by journalists, of course they cannot remain silent in the middle of any story that is beginning to run. It is interesting that instead of concentrating on the substance of the policies and arguing their merits—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is asking about policy issues in the context of a lot of processy stuff. It is interesting that Conservative Front Benchers are always obsessed with process, never the issues or the policies.

Clive Betts: Yesterday, we had a very good debate about the excellent local government finance settlement for next year, but a number of issues require further explanation, so could my right hon. Friend find time for a debate in which I could ask about a possible £4 billion cut in local government expenditure? As police, education and social services are protected, a cut would surely mean that houses would not be repaired, potholes would not be filled in, litter would not be collected, street lights would be left off, sports centres closed and libraries shut down. That may be the world that the Opposition want to live in, but I am sure that it would find no favour among Government Members.

Peter Hain: I am absolutely sure that my hon. Friend is right. Whether it is cuts that would devastate communities such as his own and others across the country, or the £35 billion of cuts that Conservative Front Benchers are triumphantly proclaiming, everyone understands that they would destroy public services and take us back to high unemployment, economic risk, high interest rates and all the devastation that that would bring.

Paul Tyler: In relation to the business announced for next Thursday, does the Leader of the House recall his eloquent plea last week for a full working day on Thursdays? He said:
	"By sitting an hour earlier on Thursday, we will make it again a day on which major business can be scheduled".—[Official Report, 26 January 2005, Vol. 430, c. 333.]
	That is not yet in place, so how does he justify the inclusion of the Identity Cards Bill next Thursday? Is it not major business? Just because there are deep divisions in the Government and among the Conservatives, that is no excuse for truncating the debate to little more than four hours.
	Today, urgent questions were raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Will the Government reply in detail before the debate? He will know that the Chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), wrote to the Home Secretary with 14 extremely important questions, and specifically asked for answers before next Monday. Can we be certain that we will have those answers before the debate? The Leader of the House will be aware from reports in both The Guardian and The Independent today that both inside and outside the House there are extremely serious concerns about the way in which the legislation appears to conflict with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. Will he therefore reschedule the debate for a later date, so that we can have a proper, full debate on a day that even he recognises as suitable for major business?
	Can the Leader of the House find an opportunity for the House to vote on the principle of making the other place more democratic and representative? He will be aware from today's papers that he and his Cabinet colleagues are being blocked by the Prime Minister on this issue.

Patrick Cormack: Quite right.

Paul Tyler: That is the only support that the Prime Minister has in the House on this matter. In an extremely important article, The Independent points out that
	"supporters of change have warned Mr Blair that Labour will be outflanked by the Tories and Liberal Democrats, who back a mainly elected chamber".
	Is it not time to have that vote? Even the Prime Minister, when answering a question from me last week, admitted that it was a matter for the House on a free vote. When will the House have that free vote?

Peter Hain: A free vote on precisely what? The last time there was a vote on the composition of the House of Lords there was no agreement on any of the options put before the House. The debate was the result of considerable consultation and preparation. As for the hon. Gentleman's objective of a reformed and democratically constituted House of Lords, I share the general principle of that objective, although not necessarily the details. I am on record as doing so, and have voted accordingly. There is therefore no surprise about the proposal or anything new in it. If we are to achieve a consensus, as the Prime Minister wants, that will allow us to move forward and resolve the matter, we must work at it rather than simply springing a vote on the House. I therefore advise the hon. Gentleman to wait and see how matters progress, especially after the general election.
	As to whether there is time to consider the remaining stages of the Identity Cards Bill on Thursday, that was discussed by the usual channels, and it was agreed to hold the debate then. There is no question of truncating the discussion. How could the Government seek to truncate a discussion about the Bill, when it has been raging in the media? The Bill itself has been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and detailed consideration in Committee. It is a major item, and it has been agreed on this occasion, as we have agreed on other occasions, to discuss it on a Thursday. Indeed, we are taking the legislative stages of another major Bill today. It has not been possible to secure agreement to hold Opposition day debates on a Thursday—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman would agree to that—but it is possible to make progress on major pieces of legislation.
	As for the report on identity cards published by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we will obviously study it in full. We welcome the Committee's view that article 8 of the European convention on human rights does not prevent the issuing of any form of identity card—that is the key point. Currently, 21 of the 25 European states have identity cards. It is only the United Kingdom, Ireland, Latvia and Denmark—which has a national identity register—that do not. That underlines the point that there is no incompatibility between the Bill and the convention. People have concerns about identity cards, and the Home Secretary and the Government as a whole will wish to consider some of the issues raised by the Joint Committee. I do not, however, accept the hon. Gentleman's central proposition.

Andrew Miller: I welcome the review of road traffic offences published by the Home Office. It is an excellent document and will be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House who wish to deal with the tragedy of death on our roads. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that primary legislation will be introduced after the consultation? More particularly, bearing in mind the fact that the consultation ends on Friday 6 May, if there is a general election in the meantime, can we be sure that enough work will have been done to introduce primary legislation at an early stage in the new Parliament?

Peter Hain: The House is grateful for the consistent attention that my hon. Friend has paid to these matters. He welcomed the Government's introduction of the Road Safety Bill, and he will be aware of the written ministerial statement by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) today. The consultation paper sets out tough new proposals to reform the framework of offences dealing with bad driving, and seeks to address public concern, which he has ventilated, about the courts' ability to deliver justice, particularly when a death is caused by careless driving, death occurs involving a driver who should not have been on the road in the first place—such drivers may be disqualified or may not even have a licence—or when serious but non-fatal injuries are sustained by victims. We are addressing all those issues, and we will continue to do so, I hope, with my hon. Friend's input in the debate.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Leader of the House alter slightly the business for the week of 21 February, and table a motion so that the House can debate removing the privileges that Sinn Fein's so-called Members of Parliament currently enjoy? Surely he agrees that they are no longer entitled to them.

Peter Hain: That is similar to a point made by the shadow Leader of the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is part of the context in which we are seeking to get the peace process back on the rails and secure a permanent democratic settlement to the difficulties in Northern Ireland. I do not think that it would be right for us to address this matter prematurely, although I understand the point that he is making.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on encouraging people off incapacity benefit and back into work—especially those who have the important skills that our country needs. As there is a perception that the policy is Treasury-driven and an attack on vulnerable people, will my right hon. Friend, in a spirit of fairness and equality, ensure that the Chancellor comes to the House to assure us that the same focus, resource and importance will be given to those who avoid paying tax in this country and whose tax burden falls on honest taxpayers?

Peter Hain: Obviously, the Chancellor, laser-like, constantly seeks to get rid of tax avoidance or tax fraud and has devoted considerable attention to that. However, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the proposals on incapacity benefit are meant not to be punitive but to provide people who have been on incapacity benefit—some for a long time—with the opportunity to work, which everybody wants, and to fulfil their duty to society in some cases. In the south Wales valleys, I have seen for myself examples of exciting pilot programmes. In many cases, hundreds of people have come off incapacity benefit and gone into jobs, which they never imagined having the opportunity to do. With that individual support, which is costly, and with the incentives to come off IB and go into work, everybody is better off: society, because the benefit bill is lower; those individuals, because they gain the dignity and opportunity of work; and businesses with vacancies, which have those vacancies filled. That is win-win for everybody concerned, which is why we are so determined to take this forward.

George Young: I read in the papers that the Leader of the House has just come from a political session of the Cabinet at which no doubt an imminent general election was discussed. May I ask a business question in relation to that and hope for a less dismissive reply than I received last time? The Electoral Commission has proposed new and higher limits for expenditure by constituency candidates, to reflect the extra costs that now have to be reported. Those limits can come into being only when a statutory instrument is laid by the Government. When will they lay that statutory instrument?

Peter Hain: I am sorry if I was dismissive to the right hon. Gentleman. I never try to be dismissive, to him in particular, as he is a senior and respected parliamentarian.

Julian Lewis: Unlike the rest of us.

Peter Hain: Some Conservative Back Benchers invite a dismissive response, although it is always done in a gentle and smiley frame of mind, especially to the hon. Gentleman who is a great participant in the theatre—sorry, serious business—of business questions.
	We shall obviously consider the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot tell him what went on in the political Cabinet, but it was most interesting.

Julia Drown: Despite all the ceasefire agreements, violence in Sudan continues, with the African Union reporting that the Sudanese air force bombed a village a few days ago killing 100 villagers. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on Darfur and the violence in Sudan so that we can call for more action, to ensure that those people receive not only the humanitarian aid but the protection that they need.

Peter Hain: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has raised this matter. She is right to keep bringing it before the House. It will of course be discussed in the Security Council shortly. We are providing active support to the African Union monitoring mission to ensure the safety of civilians in Darfur—vehicles, money and plenty of planning support. We have also encouraged the monitoring mission to deploy fully as soon as possible. So far about 1,500 personnel, from a total force of 3,000, have been deployed, and we expect a further 500 to be deployed soon, but that is not really enough, and it is imperative that the Government of Sudan fulfil their responsibilities in compliance with United Nations requirements and end the attacks on innocent civilians in that devastated area.

Sydney Chapman: Will the Leader of the House find time before Easter to hold a debate on the collecting and collating of Government statistics, especially those on the measurement of economic growth and productivity? Is he aware that some people in the Office for National Statistics are expressing concern about the issue? There is suspicion that political pressure is being applied to come up with convenient numbers. As I know that the Government—and not least the right hon. Gentleman himself—want to be transparent, will he find time for this important issue to be raised on the Floor of the House?

Peter Hain: It is indeed important, and I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. I state most emphatically that there is no attempt to rig or in any sense manipulate the statistics provided by the ONS. Indeed, because of some anomalies that have crept in—I shall refer to them in a moment to explain where I think we are—the decision was taken to launch the independent Atkinson review. That decision was taken by the national statistician, not the Government: he himself said that he needed some independent advice. For example, under current measures of productivity, if we decrease class sizes, increase the quality of teaching and improve exam results, the statistics show a fall in productivity. If someone dies, that shows an increase in health productivity. Furthermore, 40,000 fewer people dying early from cancer and heart disease do not show up in the statistics at all. We have to try to make those assessments impartially, and the ONS, especially under its current leadership, is renowned for that robust independence. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, would want to maintain that.

Liam Byrne: In the state of New York, the Batson inquiry into fraud at Enron has heard evidence that both the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays worked with Enron executives in a way that allowed the company to hide the true state of its debts and contributed to its later bankruptcy, throwing thousands of employees out of work. Now that the evidence is on the record, when will we find time for a debate about the steps that the Serious Fraud Office is taking to ensure that our banks are clean and do nothing to encourage company directors to breach their fiduciary duties or their duties to their employees?

Peter Hain: This is obviously a serious point, and given my hon. Friend's expertise and background, I am sure that the House will want to take particular note of it. He has the opportunity to apply for a private Member's debate on the issue, and I hope he will avail himself of that opportunity. I cannot promise him an early debate, but it is vital that such issues are addressed.

Keith Simpson: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the state of British manufacturing industry? In my constituency on Monday, a manufacturer of trailers, Crane Fruehauf, closed its doors. The administrator was brought in and 345 employees were made redundant. As the right hon. Gentleman will understand, that has had a devastating impact on the small market town of Dereham. Obviously, that situation came about for many reasons, but is there anything that the Government can do in the short term, through the offices of the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Trade and Industry, to help the workers who have been made redundant?
	Secondly, it seems that the company, like many others, was having great difficulty exporting, owing, among other things, to the high level of fuel tax on lorries. It seems to me that that is unfair competition, compared with many of our European partners.

Peter Hain: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will want to pay careful attention to the hon. Gentleman's point, especially given the importance of the matter in his constituency. For the benefit of his constituents and the House, I remind everyone that Jobcentre Plus provides an enormous range of support for those who, unfortunately, face redundancy. There is also a rapid response service when additional support is necessary, which has made its services available to more than 112,000 people facing redundancy. Unfortunately, manufacturing, more than almost any other sector of the economy, is subject to enormous global pressure and a certain amount of churning and changes in jobs. However, it is important to put it on record that last year manufacturing created £150 billion of our wealth; 3.5 million people earn their living directly from the sector; and it accounts for more than half our exports and three quarters of our business research and development.
	There is a thriving manufacturing sector and it is important that we continue to invest in science, skills and other support for it, but obviously I am disappointed about what has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and trust that the requisite services will be provided as soon as possible.

Alice Mahon: Has the Leader of the House had time to look at early-day motion 579, signed by 77 Members,
	[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 3372), dated 17th December 2004, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd December, be annulled.]?
	The motion reflects deep concern about the local government pension scheme regulations. He will be aware of the huge concern among public sector workers who believe that they are being given very little time for debate. May we have an urgent debate on the matter?

Peter Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which she is not alone in expressing. The changes that she describes, which will come into effect in April, are necessary as part of a wider package that the Chancellor announced to reduce pressures on local authority budgets, thus helping to protect front-line services and, crucially, to keep council tax increases—which she is concerned about, as we all are—under 5 per cent. in the coming year. If those changes are not implemented, local government would face increasing pension costs of about £300 million per annum over the next three years, which could involve cuts in services, front-line jobs and pressure on council taxes. These are difficult matters, but her concern is being taken into account.

Peter Robinson: Following last night's statement by the Provisional IRA, does the Leader of the House feel, as I do, that we have heard just about everything from that organisation—an organisation that has butchered our fellow citizens for 25 years, rejected the Government's comprehensive agreement and instead carried out the biggest bank robbery in British history, and now has the bare-faced effrontery to say that the Government have tried the IRA's patience to the limit? Has he seen early-day motion 463, which calls for the withdrawal of privileges from Sinn Fein-IRA in the House,
	[That this House notes with concern the statement by the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland that the IRA were responsible for the raid on the Headquarters of the Northern Bank in Belfast when in excess of £26 million was stolen; recalls the Prime Minister's assertion that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked; believes that this act of criminality proves that Sinn Fein cannot be treated like a normal democratic party; and calls upon the House to immediately withdraw all privileges from Sinn Fein honourable Members.]?
	Does the Leader of the House recognise that if he takes the attitude that he expressed in response to an earlier question, many will see that the Government do not have the bottle, the political backbone and the moral courage to take on those gunmen and gangsters?

Peter Hain: I understand the force behind the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he really want to describe the Government as lacking in bottle, backbone or moral courage when the Prime Minister put his entire reputation on the line in negotiating the Good Friday agreement and has paid consistent attention to trying to get the peace settlement entrenched permanently and achieve a permanent democratic settlement? The discussions that my right hon. Friend has had with the hon. Gentleman's party are part of that. That is where we should focus. I agree that the events of the past few weeks have been deeply unfortunate and the behaviour concerned unacceptable, but instead of a blame game we must concentrate on really getting down to securing the future of a democratic Northern Ireland.

John Robertson: I raised with my right hon. Friend some weeks ago ATM charging in poor areas of the city of Glasgow and areas with a high elderly population. I have subsequently found more information on that subject. Is he aware that a charge is made at 78 per cent. of all ATMs in post offices throughout the country? Those charges are made only in areas with low employment and a high elderly population where many people are on benefits. Is it not time that he called a debate in the House to try to get the banks—in particular, the Alliance & Leicester and Hanco, which is owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland—to stop the disgraceful act of charging the poor and the elderly, as well as those who live outside a main city or town?

Peter Hain: I represent a constituency with many outlying former pit villages, so I absolutely understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. It would be very helpful if he could secure a private Member's debate, in which other hon. Members could express their view on the matter and the banks and other institutions responsible could be held to account. As he says, the poorest and some of the oldest citizens, who do not have cars or the ability to go to a free ATM, are most punitively hit by such behaviour. I would certainly welcome the opportunity of a private Member's debate, but I cannot promise him one in Government time.

Andrew Robathan: May I ask the Leader of the House a question of substance and policy that relates to the disgraceful situation of the electoral registration of members of the armed forces? Is he aware that the Government have effectively disfranchised four out of five servicemen and women, while they are willingly sending them to risk their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is he aware that, perversely, under regulation 23 of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2003, each member who is not registered is liable to a fine of up to £1,000? Is he further aware that the Ministry of Defence website is still more than four years out of date on the issue and gives entirely the wrong advice? That is scandalous. What will the Government do about it before the impending general election?

Peter Hain: I endorse the principle that the hon. Gentleman expresses: our armed forces, especially those serving in some of the most dangerous conditions, which he knows of at first hand in Iraq, should have the opportunity to vote at the general election. The Secretary of State for Defence is looking into the matter—

Julian Lewis: Urgently?

Peter Hain: Yes, urgently, and my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's points.

Anne Picking: On a day when my only personal political hero is addressing a rally on world poverty in Trafalgar square, will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on world poverty, particularly to support us next month when we launch fair trade fortnight?

Peter Hain: I very strongly endorse the campaign against world poverty in 2005 and the way that the entire world's attention is being focused on it, not least by Nelson Mandela's address in Trafalgar square today and by the action of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in making poverty in Africa the central agenda item of Britain's presidency of the G8 and the European Union. I know that that is widely welcomed right across the House.

Julian Lewis: Next week, I hope to attend an important conference on the future of Muslim youth in Europe. Does the Leader of the House accept that constructive events such as that are not helped by the use of racial or religious stereotyping in election propaganda campaigns? May we therefore have a debate on that subject on a free vote? The debate could be opened by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the script could be written by the secret committee that includes Alastair Campbell and various close friends of the unlamented Jo Moore. However, by allowing a free vote, people like the right hon. Gentleman and his deputy, who I am sure are quite disgusted at what was done, would be able to vote with us and ensure that nothing like that ever happens again.

Peter Hain: No one on Labour's side has any time for racial or religious stereotyping. The hon. Gentleman did not make this charge, but for the record I should have thought that that is the last thing that he could accuse me of, given my record on this matter. As he knows, the matter was raised in the House a day or two ago.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My right hon. Friend will know the importance of miners' compensation to our communities, especially as he represents Neath, and the role that the Department of Trade and Industry has in administering the scheme, which has now paid out more than £51 million in Ogmore alone. However, the DTI also has a bigger role in supporting small businesses in my constituency, so will he please find time for a debate on the role of and the possible efficiency savings in the DTI, bearing in mind Digby Jones's statement in respect of the James review:
	"The DTI must have the resources to do its job. There is a world of difference between streamlining a department and cutting it to the bone to the point of emasculation."?

Peter Hain: Both my hon. Friend and Digby Jones make the case very eloquently for a DTI that provides continuing support to sick miners, retired miners or their families or widows, rather than axing from underneath them all the billions of pounds that our Labour Government have paid out to those miners in his constituency, mine and many scores of others across the country. That brings into sharp focus the whole nonsense of pretending that there can be £35 billion of cuts without affecting such absolutely vital services or abolishing the DTI entirely and, with that, all its programmes, as the Liberal Democrats propose. We need a serious debate and I am keen to find an opportunity to have one, so that the way in which those policies simply do not stack up can be exposed.

Chris Grayling: I am sure that the Leader of the House sees himself as a man of honesty and integrity. Given his eloquence in the past and his readiness to say how unhappy he is with the European food supplements directive, why on earth last week did his put his name to a Government motion that wholeheartedly supports it?

Peter Hain: I always find that I become a little suspicious when I am accused across the Floor of possessing honesty and integrity, because I wonder what is going to happen next. The hon. Gentleman knows that the issue has been long debated and I have expressed my concerns about it. The other day's decision was taken on a different, although related, matter.

Bill Tynan: My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is just over a year since cannabis was reclassified and that there is growing medical evidence of the effect of its use, especially on young people. May we have a debate in Government time on the effect of cannabis resin on individuals as soon as possible?

Peter Hain: I am sorry to have to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I cannot promise time for such a debate. However, he is free to apply for one himself in the usual way.

Jenny Tonge: Earlier today in the Chamber, the Foreign Secretary said that he hoped that there would be a debate on the middle east peace process very soon. May we please have that debate before the Easter recess?

Peter Hain: I will certainly think about that. The shadow Leader of the House asked me about that because there is a lot of interest in, and concern about, the situation, given both the opportunities and the problems that exist in the middle east. I shall continue to bear the request in mind, but I cannot offer the hon. Lady any encouragement that there will be an early debate, given the current heavy legislative programme.

Kelvin Hopkins: In Treasury questions earlier today, concerns were again raised about the enormous tax gap. Additionally, my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) touched on the iniquity of tax evasion. Given the enormity of the tax gap and the revenue problems that could be solved if it were closed, will my right hon. Friend make space for a debate during which we could discuss the possibility of perhaps increasing the number of tax officers, introducing new and higher penalties for tax evasion and taking other steps to close the tax gap? Could we not also consider what we might spend the increased funds on, because such measures as free long-term care for the elderly could be paid for by closing a tiny fraction of that tax gap?

Peter Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the matter. The Chancellor is just as aware of the issue as my hon. Friend, and he and his Ministers have been bearing down on it. Indeed, although there are several reasons for merging Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue, one of them is to make the operation to target tax avoidance and fraud more efficient. I think that my hon. Friend will find that such measures will be pursued with increasing determination.

Michael Fabricant: A few minutes ago the Foreign Secretary confirmed that the Iranians have been withholding information about their nuclear development programme from the British, French and Germans. Given that last night President Bush said:
	"Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror—pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve",
	may we have an urgent debate on the subject of Iran and precisely what action the United Kingdom would take if there were military intervention there?

Peter Hain: I was encouraged by President Bush's statement:
	"We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium re-processing, and end its support for terror."
	Such joint action between the USA and Europe—and others throughout the world—can bear down on the problem, as the Foreign Secretary has continuously explained.

Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) earlier referred to the important statement made by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on enabling people who are disabled to get into work. That was an important element of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was put forward in the House by Lord Morris, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and me, although it was kicked into touch by the then Conservative Government.
	Is my right hon. Friend aware that medical examiners necessarily have a key role on incapacity benefit and thus the new proposals? However, there are many problems with medical examinations because some people who are not entitled to benefit receive it, while others who are clearly entitled to it are refused. May we have a debate about medical examiners so that we can find out who examines the examiners and ensure that we get this key issue right?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. I cannot promise him an early debate, although he might wish to apply for one in a private Member's capacity. The Government's policy of providing more opportunities for those who have been on incapacity benefit, or are coming on to it, is vital to cut economic inactivity and provide more hope and opportunity for such people. I have seen in my constituency—I am sure that my hon. Friend has, too—the way in which such intensive and quite costly work is liberating individuals who are otherwise trapped at home.

Michael Weir: The Leader of the House might be aware of reports in Scotland this morning that the Ministry of Defence is planning another disgraceful assault on the local ties of Scotland's regiments by forcing the closure of individual regimental museums, which would cause great anger among veterans. Will he ensure that a Minister comes to the House to make a statement on the proposals for the future of those individual museums?

Peter Hain: I am not aware of the detail of the hon. Gentleman's question, but no Minister in the Ministry of Defence—especially not the Secretary of State—would make a disgraceful assault on any part of the armed services or their heritage. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to withdraw that comment, on reflection, and I am equally sure that the Secretary of State will take notice of what he said.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on to the main business.

Points of Order

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I share with you the latest vivid example of how the Government are making a mockery of Parliament? As you know, the Road Safety Bill is currently being considered in Committee. As a result of a Government guillotine, its consideration must be completed by 5.30 pm today.
	The Halliday review, which was commissioned by the Government into road traffic offences involving bad driving, is highly relevant to what the Committee is discussing. Last week, I described the frustration felt by the Committee that the report had not yet been published. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), when we would see the outcome of the review. He said:
	"I cannot give a precise answer  . . . The hon. Gentleman can ask the Home Office about it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 January 2005; c.172.]
	That is exactly what I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I tabled a question for priority written answer on Tuesday 1 February, but instead of receiving a substantive reply, I received a holding reply that gave me no information at all. I have still not received a substantive reply. However, at 9.30 am today—five minutes after the Committee sitting started—a copy of the report on the Halliday review was placed in the Library, thus conveniently timed to prevent the debate of its contents in Committee. It is inconceivable that Home Office Ministers did not know on Tuesday that the document would be published today as it is glossily printed and the press were told about it yesterday. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ask Mr. Speaker to obtain an apology from the Home Office for what has happened?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Home Secretary gave notice to the House of a written ministerial statement to be made today about the road traffic offences review. That statement, which announces the publication of the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers, was received by the House of Commons at 9.30 am, as he says. I understand that copies of the document have now been made available to the Standing Committee. However, I say to the House that it is the responsibility of Ministers to ensure that papers that are relevant to a Committee's deliberations are available to all Committee members at the appropriate time. I hope that this example of the kind of thing that goes wrong will not happen again.

Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have noted during the business statement that we had no indication of the business that would be allocated for Thursday 24 February—there was a gap. However, in response to protestations from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the necessity for an urgent debate on the middle east, the Leader of the House said that there was no room in the programme and that urgent business was being advanced. He also refused my request to reschedule the debate on the Identity Cards Bill, which has obviously been given time next Thursday that is too restricted. Since the Leader of the House is still in the Chamber, will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, give him the opportunity to explain why we have no business scheduled for that day, although we are being told that everything is so important and urgent?

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Leader of the House said during business questions, I have called on many occasions for a full debate on foreign affairs so that we can discuss matters relating to Africa and the middle east. Can the Leader of the House use the opportunity of that Thursday to give us such a debate? There have been considerable developments in both regions since the last time they were discussed by the House, and it is our duty to hold the Government to account on such important matters.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow an extension of business questions now, but it would be reasonable if the Leader of the House were to respond briefly to the point of order.

Peter Hain: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the point of order, although I was wondering whether business questions were being extended by hon. Members seeking to raise matters that they had missed.
	I had hoped to be able to announce consideration on that Thursday of a Northern Ireland Bill, but was unable to do so as it has been bogged down in discussions between the usual channels in the House of Lords. It is intended to introduce the Bill as soon as possible, so there is no scope for the debate sought by the hon. Gentlemen, which in principle I would like to secure.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the main business.

Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
	Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the Programme Order of 7th December 2004 relating to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill be varied as follows—
	1.   Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2.   Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	3.   The proceedings shown in the first column of the Table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.
	
		TABLE
		
			  
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to Clause 122 and Schedule 10; new Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to blasphemy. One and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. 
			 New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to the use of intercept evidence in legal proceedings. Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. 
			 New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to the protection of organisations from economic damage or other interference with their activities. Three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. 
			 New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to the status and powers of staff of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. 
			 New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to behaviour in vicinity of Parliament Square; remaining proceedings on consideration. Five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. 
		
	
	4.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a   conclusion six and a half  hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration.—[Fiona Mactaggart.]

Andrew Mitchell: I am astonished by the brevity with which the Minister has started this important debate. Our debates on programme motions often have the qualities of a choreographed Greek chorus, with outrage expressed by the Opposition about the nature of the motion and the Government saying that their predecessors behaved in precisely the same way, but I submit that today's motion is an outrageous abuse by the Executive of their programming powers. I shall explain why I think so and invite colleagues on both sides of the House to vote against the motion.
	The Bill, whose Report stage is next Monday, was described by the Government during the debates on the Gracious Speech as a "flagship Bill" and Ministers have made it clear that they attach the greatest possible importance to the legislation. The Minister will confirm that the Opposition have behaved in a classically responsible manner when discussing the Bill on the Floor of the House. On Second Reading we set out those aspects that we supported and those about which we had reservations. Furthermore, no programme motion was required in Committee: we agreed with the Government through the usual channels that eight sittings would be acceptable, although we would have liked more. We said that, in so far as it was within the power of Her Majesty's Opposition to report the Bill at 7 o'clock on the appropriate evening, we would do so, and the Bill was reported within 90 seconds of that time. Almost all the key clauses were discussed, and the Opposition's approach was at all times constructive.
	We asked for two days on Report precisely to prevent what is now about to happen on Monday. The first knife in the proposed motion will fall one and a half hours after the debate starts on the provisions dealing with religious hatred. Those provisions might be acceptable to the House, and with good will on both sides we might be able conclude our discussions on that topic within the allotted time.

Eric Forth: I shall be interested to hear why my hon. Friend believes that an hour and a half would be remotely sufficient to discuss a subject as important as religious hatred, given that all hon. Members, I am sure, have received anguished letters from constituents on the subject and Report provides the only opportunity for those who did not have the privilege of being members of the Standing Committee to debate such matters. Will my hon. Friend reconsider his comment, albeit that it was an attempt at generosity on his part?

Andrew Mitchell: Despite the fact that what he says is true, I invite my right hon. Friend to listen to my comments on all the other aspects of the programme motion and to consider, in the spirit of the good will that the Opposition are trying to engender, whether one and a half hours to debate religious hatred might be sufficient.
	The second topic of discussion is intercepts. It is dealt with in a new clause, which has attracted support from hon. Members of all parties. Although it was discussed only briefly in Committee, it is a key provision that abuts on a subject of great concern across the House—those people who are currently locked up in jail and are outside the criminal justice system. An authoritative argument has been made that the use of intercept evidence in court could enable those people to be brought back within the criminal justice system. Acres of print have been published on the subject and it has been discussed on every television channel. It relates to the question of house arrest, and to our liberties, yet under the programme motion we shall be able to discuss it for only half an hour. It will take me almost all that time to move and explain the new clause that stands in my name. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has tabled a perfectly reasonable amendment to the programme motion, succeeds in persuading the House to accept it, the House will have absolutely no time at all—zero minutes—to discuss the important question of intercepts.

Peter Luff: To clarify the argument that my hon. Friend is making so powerfully and convincingly, let me say that we anticipate at least two votes when the first knife falls, and that they will probably take half an hour.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Even if the amendment to the motion is not accepted, the maximum time available to us will be half an hour.
	The topic has not been debated on the Floor of the House. It has been the subject of heavyweight reports by Lord Lloyd and Lord Newton. The report of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, including senior Privy Councillors from both sides of the House, made it clear that intercept evidence should be discussed and preferably agreed upon by Parliament.

Bill Wiggin: I am perplexed. Can my hon. Friend think of any reason why the Government want such a tight programme, and why we should not be able to discuss such an important issue of liberty for a little longer?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of the issue. It has been widely discussed outside the House, but we are not to have time to discuss it in the House.
	The next subject of the knife is our debate on animal rights terrorism—a matter of great importance on which my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) has produced much good work. During our constructive debates in Committee, he won some concessions from the Government, as did the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I have just come from an on-the-record meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who is considering aspects of the Bill, and I understand that some matters have not yet been decided. Our approach has been constructive, but the Government are proposing to allow only half an hour if there are two votes after the preceding debate.
	The next group of provisions relates to the Opposition's concerns about the nature of a constable. Under the Bill, regardless of their training, every officer of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, whose creation we support, could have the powers of a constable—that is, powers of arrest. This is a serious matter of principle, and again, of liberty, because it changes the nature of police powers to which this country has adhered for more than 400 years. If the Government want to make that change, they have the right to do so—if they can win a vote in the House—but to allow only a half-hour debate on it is wrong.
	The final knife before Third Reading falls on the debate on behaviour in the vicinity of Parliament square, which is another important aspect of the freedom to protest. As I said, I have come from a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was extremely helpful on the Committee. I pay credit to the hon. Lady. She is still considering whether a change should be brought before the House on Monday on the way in which the issue of Parliament square is handled. This is a matter of concern across the House. There are divisions in all parties on the subject, and it needs to be dealt with on the Floor of the House. Nothing has yet been tabled by the Government. Even now the Minister is still considering what the Government should table on this important matter, to be discussed on Monday.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend may not know that today I tabled some modest amendments to that part of the Bill, partly because I think the Bill could do with improvement, and because considerable discussion is merited on an issue of the greatest importance not just to the House, but to all citizens. Notwithstanding what the Government may or may not do to their own Bill, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that my amendments will deserve substantial debate.

Andrew Mitchell: I have indeed read my right hon. Friend's amendment, which reduces the cordon sanitaire from 1 kilometre to 200 metres—

Eric Forth: Yards!

Andrew Mitchell: —to 200 yards. It is an interesting amendment, and I can tell my right hon. Friend that the Government are considering it. They are taking a responsible attitude and trying to work their way through the problem. However, it is outrageous that the Executive should come to the legislature and tell us that we can have only half an hour to discuss the matter on the Floor of the House—along with all the other issues, on which we are being allowed only half an hour.
	That is ridiculous. It is a Government abuse because they have a large majority and can win votes. They should not be able to stifle debate. This place works on the basis that we have a right to be heard. If the House can spend 700 hours discussing foxes, surely we can have two days on Report and Third Reading on the Government's flagship Bill. If the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) looks back at the record—I speak as a former senior Government Whip—she will see that no Tory or previous Labour Government ever behaved in such a draconian way by curtailing discussion as the motion does. The motion is an insult to every hon. Member, and to those who send us here and pay us to represent them. Above all, it makes a mockery of scrutinising legislation.

John McDonnell: I beg to move amendment (a),
	In the Table, in the entry relating to the use of intercept evidence in legal proceedings, in column 2, leave out from 'Two' to 'New' in column 1 in the entry relating to protection of organisations from economic damage or other interference with their activities, and insert—
	
		
			  
			 '   hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. 
			 Amendments relating to the abolition of the Royal Parks Constabulary Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration.' 
		
	
	I tabled amendments yesterday that were in order and tabled within the appropriate time for them to be considered for selection. I accept that when the Government drafted the programme motion and published it this morning, they were unable to take into account the amendments that I tabled.
	My amendment seeks to find half an hour in a hectic programme to discuss what I consider to be an important issue. I was not privileged to be a member of the Standing Committee. The Committee considered the transfer of the Royal Parks constabulary to the Metropolitan police, but it did not address the individual rights of members of staff who are to be transferred. If we in the House have any role, our prime role is to protect the rights of the individual, whether they be constituents or others.
	The Royal Parks police consists of 141 officers, of whom 42 are members of a trade union, the PCS. Those members of staff, who have served loyally in the royal parks and were commended in Committee for their work, will lose their right to be members of a trade union when they are transferred to the Metropolitan police. They will also lose the value of their pension—estimated at about a 30 per cent. loss. There was no debate about that in Committee, because I do not believe that many hon. Members understood the implications.
	I can find no opportunity for debate on Monday, except in the last section of the programme, when many other issues will be debated. As the relevant clause is clause 144, it is unlikely to be reached. We are breaching the fundamental human rights of the individuals in question. When we discussed GCHQ and the protection of the right to become a trade unionist, the Government were clearly committed to those human rights. The measure will also affect the future standard of living of those members of staff, and that warrants a debate. For that reason, I have suggested that we give a small amount of time—half an hour—one third of the way into the programme so that we can deal with the matter.
	If we cannot amend the programme motion in that way today, I urge the Minister to take the matter back to her colleagues. It has not been addressed, and I urge her to give sympathetic consideration to the amendments that I tabled and make a statement on Monday about how the Government propose to address this important matter.

Robert Smith: The amendment illustrates how chaotic the programme motion is. It is still possible to table amendments today, and the Government's programme motion does not take into account the issues that Back Benchers may want to raise. The problem with the amendment is the priorities that the Government have set and the time that they have allocated. The business in the first one and a half hour debate is highly likely to provoke two votes, which will take almost half an hour. Accepting the amendment means that we would have no debate on intercept evidence, which is extremely important. That is frustrating and worrying.
	The Procedure Committee presented a report that aimed to improve the way programming works, and to provide encouragement through the usual channels to produce a consensual programme that would fit most of the business in. Sadly, on the advice of the Government, the House rejected the report. As a fall-back from the Procedure Committee's proposals, the Government would have to use the guillotine process. The report was an attempt to force the Government to recognise the need to build an understanding throughout the House of what should be in the programme. Having rejected that, the Government have become addicted to managing the business for their own convenience, not for the effective scrutiny of legislation nor for effective debate.
	The programme motion does not allow enough time for adequate scrutiny of fundamental matters such as intercept evidence and the whole new area of vital legislation on animal rights extremists and the effect of their activities on people's legitimate right to carry out their business. The future of Parliament square is bound to be controversial, so all the remaining topics will receive no consideration. The Government have failed to protect the business so that Back Benchers have an effective and adequate input. Yet again the Government are passing the buck to the other place to scrutinise the legislation. I urge them to recognise the error of their ways, withdraw the programme motion, acknowledge the need for more time on Report and Third Reading, and come back with a far more thought-out proposal.

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) has spoken modestly and moderately, just as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) moved his moderate amendment in a modest and moderate way.
	The Minister has perpetrated an outrage today. She had the brass nerve to stand at the Dispatch Box and move the programme motion formally—she did not explain for one minute why the Government are doing this. We are seeing evidence of an elective dictatorship. That is exceptionally serious. Programming is bad enough. It is happening with every Bill, and it is happening without proper and adequate consultation—but this is a programme too far. In his admirable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) went through the parts of the Bill showing how they directly and indirectly touch the lives of millions of our fellow citizens. There is almost no one in this country who will not be affected in one way or another by the implications of this Bill.
	I support many parts of the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield made that clear. My Front-Bench colleagues have some objections to the Bill that I do not share, and I shall explain why. On some parts of the Bill, I am more on the side of the Government than of the Opposition. They are only small points, but they exist.

Eric Forth: What's new?

Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend asks, "What's new?"—and I do try to bring an independent mind to most things. But the fact of the matter is that the Government are ignoring Parliament, sidelining it and treating it with derision. We were all sent here to play a part in holding the Government to account and in scrutinising legislation that is put before us. It is a duty that we cannot perform if this programme motion is voted through. It will be impossible to debate adequately any of the subjects that the Bill touches upon.
	Probably a couple of hours—certainly an hour and a half—will be taken up by Divisions and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said, half an hour may be spent on intercepts. If the modest amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, which I should like to support, were made, there would be no time at all.
	There was a time when someone came into the Chamber, or its predecessor, pointed to the Mace and said, "Take away that bauble," and Parliament was suspended. The Government have introduced plenty of stealth taxes, and they are now attacking by stealth the very integrity of Parliament, with a series of motions that emasculate it. That should be a matter of supreme importance to every Member, whatever his or her views and whatever constituency he or she represents. We cannot do our job if motions such as this are passed.
	Most people in this House will accept that I try to behave as a House of Commons man: I seek consensus where it can be found. I hope that I am independent-minded on most subjects. But if the Government persist in this way, the official Opposition would be entirely justified in withdrawing all support, in leaving the Modernisation Committee and saying: "We will have no part of this and we will not do anything that can be construed in any way as conferring legitimacy on an operation that is designed to obliterate the proper function of Parliament."
	This is a sad and serious moment. It is a programme motion too far, and I hope that the Minister, who has not yet uttered a word, will take it away, and then return and give us two days. That is modest enough for a measure of such far-reaching importance, but we could then work together again in a consensual spirit, ensuring that as far as possible—we accept that the timetable is truncated because an election is looming—we discuss, at least briefly, every aspect of this far-reaching Bill.

Eric Forth: What is so symptomatic about the charade in which we are now engaged is that, first, the Minister—all too typically, I am sad to say—did not see fit to explain to the House why the Government saw fit to truncate our deliberations in this vicious and draconian way. This now routine guillotining of our proceedings sums up all too well the narrow relationship between the Government and the House of Commons. As has been eloquently explained on both sides of the House, we are faced yet again with a major piece of legislation containing serious and controversial matters that we shall not have proper time to debate.
	Frankly, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) was over-generous to the Government. He was as angry as the rest of us, but said that, for example, a one and a half hour debate on religious hatred might be enough. The matter has caused great concern to people up and down our land, and rightly so, and deserves prolonged and serious considered debate in this House. Yet the Government announce peremptorily in the programme motion, "No, you will have only a limited amount of time on this because we, the Government, see it that way." That eloquently states the narrow relationship between the Government and the House.
	I have done a quick count of amendments, but further new clauses and amendments may be tabled today, so it is by no means complete. The Order Paper lists 17 new clauses—some were tabled by the Secretary of State, so the Government are still amending their own Bill—and some 133 amendments, of which 70 were tabled by the Government, on subjects such as intimidation of persons, animal research organisations, the power to seize, interception, which my hon. Friend mentioned, religious hatred, and restrictions in Parliament square.
	In the good old days when there was a proper relationship between the Government and the House, that last matter alone might have taken a day's debate. We are talking about the possible restriction of the ability of our citizens freely to demonstrate in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament. That is a very serious matter, and one on which I am sure that we all have a view, because it touches on the fundamental rights of our citizens. Yet the Government have apparently dismissed it as worthy of little discussion or deliberation.
	I tabled a couple of amendments, because the Bill requires deliberation and improvement. If the draconian guillotine is swept through today by the Government with their huge majority—sadly, we are used to that—I doubt whether I shall have an opportunity to bring the matter to the House. That is just one relatively small example. It is a sad, sad day when we are left in this position, whereby the Minister, secure with her huge Government majority, knows that she can come here and not even do the House the courtesy of explaining what the guillotine is about, and assumes that it will go through with little protest.
	That is all well and good, but I hope that some day people will wake up to what has happened to this Parliament, and to this House in this Parliament. We are effectively handing over our responsibility, as the House of Commons, for the proper scrutiny of legislation—ironically, to the unelected House of Lords. It does a wonderful job of scrutinising legislation properly: it works more days and longer hours than we do, it has more serious debates, and it is not subject to draconian Government timetables. I wish that I were a member of the House of Lords.

Edward Garnier: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said that this is a sad day. Just as he thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) was too generous, I think that he was too generous. This is not a sad day; it is a shameful day. Indeed, I suggest that it is a shameless day because we are being led to the parliamentary slaughterhouse by an amoral Government.
	This Government, with a majority of 165, ought to have the confidence to present their ideas to this House so that they can be tested. We all know where the votes will come from. We all know that people will leave their offices, switch off the television and come here to troop through the Aye Lobby in favour of the Government. But at least they might do us and, more importantly, our constituents, the courtesy of allowing us to test their ideas through argument. Some of those ideas need to be tested to destruction. Some need to be tested so that they can be improved; my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) mentioned one or two that he is concerned about. Some, if the Government condescended to explain them to us, might receive all-party support, as perhaps they did during earlier stages of the Bill. But at no stage should any Government come to this Chamber and simply assume that we as representatives of the people of this country should simply buckle up, sit down and say, "Oh masters, please tread all over us."

Andrew Mitchell: One extremely good example of what my hon. and learned Friend is saying is the issue that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire—Parliament square, in which respect even now the Minister is refining the Government's proposals. She is actually doing a good job in trying to reach consensus on this difficult issue, but if she returns to the House and wants to win its support, she will not be able to do so because there will not be enough time for her to take account of opinion, listen to what is said and explain her proposals.

Edward Garnier: It gets worse. No doubt at some stage some Minister will stand up and say that the matter was fully canvassed in Committee. We all know what happens in Standing Committees nowadays. There are knives, the Government majority are compliant and silent, and Opposition Members are prohibited by the time scheduling from expanding the points of view that many members of the public wish to hear debated and considered. It is no good the Government saying that the matter was adequately discussed in Committee.
	Furthermore, we all know that Standing Committees are a limited representation of the House of Commons. Those of us who are not on the Bill Committee want an opportunity on behalf of either our constituents or a wider interest group to express our concerns or perhaps our support on issues, such as the curtailment of freedom to do with the law on religious hatred. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and I share the same view of the law on religious hatred. We think that it is a bad idea and that the public should hear the arguments from Members other than those on the Committee.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said a moment ago, intercept evidence along with the question of religious hatred are two of the most important issues concerning civil liberties that the Bill will destroy. What are we supposed to do with half an hour to discuss the civil liberties of our citizens? Do you remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in 1998 the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, "Hallelujah, this is the Labour Government that is bringing human rights home."? The Government were going to domesticate the European convention on human rights by enacting the Human Rights Bill. What a load of codswallop. What a load of trash. They do not know what they are doing. They have no understanding of the constitutional proprieties. This is a disgraceful and despotic Government. The rulers of the Soviet Union would tip their hat to this lot. The Bill should be given proper consideration by this House, and I hope that it will reject this revolting timetabling motion.

Evan Harris: I am aware that the Minister is keen to respond even in the limited time we have to discuss the limited time that we have to discuss the Bill on Report. I have a few brief points.
	At the start it was not entirely satisfactory that the Bill was such a portmanteau business incorporating different sorts of legislation, but it is recognised that we have to do what we can in Committee. The Committee was disciplined. In my view there is no reason why a Committee cannot get through such a Bill if Members show restraint, as was shown on all sides, but on the basis that each part, which will inevitably be considered separately on Report, will be given adequate time for discussion. It is unfortunate that the programme motion does not provide for that.
	In addition, the animal extremism measure is a dramatic piece of legislation. The construction of the five Government new clauses that make up the economic sabotage measure shows that careful discussion and scrutiny is necessary. I question whether there is enough time to do that. Today, I tabled an amendment, the measure having been published only in the last two days, and it is not clear whether there is enough time for consideration. Moreover, the Government could have introduced the new clauses before the conclusion of the Committee stage for us to discuss then, rather than waiting until a few days before a Report stage debate to do so.
	Finally, there is the question of the section on religious incitement. Two new clauses, if selected, will need debate and may well lead to Divisions. New clause 3 substitutes a different approach from the Government's and it has three-party support. That means that we are dealing not just with the Government and one or two Front-Bench spokesmen, but with Government Back Benchers who will want their say as they have signed the new clause. It is unusual to have that sort of arrangement on Report on a Government Bill, particularly so close to an election. That should signal that there is plenty to debate.
	In addition, there is a new clause dealing with the abolition of blasphemy. That has hardly ever been debated in the House and the last time was, I think, 15 years ago. It, too, has cross-party Back-Bench support and Members will want to give their view. I understand that Conservative Members will have a free vote, so no doubt there will be more than one view held among them. Certainly there will be more than one view on the Government Benches. I do not see how it will be possible to cover that discussion in an hour and a half.
	I urge the Government, who so far have dealt with the business of the Bill in a spirit of co-operation despite the tight scheduling, to reconsider the programme motion to provide adequate time for all those matters. If the Government do not, they know that they will have difficulty in the House of Lords on the question of religious incitement. The failure to debate this properly in this House gives encouragement, rightly so, to the other place to stand firm in their previously expressed belief that this is not what they want to see. Fuller discussion in this House might persuade some of their lordships to drop their objections. The Government are making a rod for their own back by trying to rush that particular measure and this Bill through the House.

Fiona Mactaggart: The reason why I moved the programme motion formally rather than exercising all the arguments in favour of its construction was precisely to give Members on all sides an opportunity to state their concerns. This debate is limited. The Government deliberately tabled the debate for today to guarantee that it should not in any way eat into the opportunities for debate on the measures themselves. We guarantee that even if there is a statement, we will get the full amount of time set out in this programme motion.

Andrew Mitchell: The Minister said that the Government held the debate today so that they could listen to what was said. She has heard from across the House blanket condemnation of the motion. Will she now withdraw it?

Fiona Mactaggart: No, I will not. I am using the opportunity to clarify the reasons for what we have done and to ensure that all hon. Members are confident that there will be the full time for debate, as set out in the motion.
	The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) implied that debate in Committee had been restricted. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) serves on the Committee and knows that no knives were used. Indeed, the Government offered additional evening sittings, so the Bill has been fully debated in Committee. Those who have participated in those sittings have acknowledged that in their contributions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who moved the amendment, was not a member of the Committee. I accept that his genuine concerns were not dealt with in Committee, which considered such matters relatively briskly, but they could well be dealt with at a meeting with my ministerial colleagues. I hope that we can offer him that opportunity and that he will withdraw his amendment. It is easy to do that because, as hon. Members on all sides have said, during the Bill's consideration my colleagues and I have had extensive meetings with Members and others who have had concerns about aspects of the Bill. We have tried to listen to them. Changes have been made, which hon. Members have graciously acknowledged.

Robert Smith: The Minister is making a point about trying to deal with some of the individual concerns, but the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington raised his concerns on the Floor of the House for the rest of the House to be aware that there was a problem in the Bill. She is now proposing to deal with those concerns at a private meeting. Will the response from that be put in the Library or before the House so that hon. Members can see it? It is important that there is a record in Hansard for the courts to see how Ministers have justified their legislation. Hansard provides the record of which arguments they used to justify their case.

Fiona Mactaggart: As I understand it, the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington are not necessarily with the proposal in the Bill, but with the impact of the proposal on people who are current employees. It is appropriate for such a matter to be dealt with in this way. I hope that my offer of a meeting will deal with his concerns.
	I am struck that hon. Members, while raising concerns about the amount of time available for debate, have felt that the programme motion focuses on the right five key issues. After all, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) described the measure as a Bill of 220 pages with which he agreed with all but two. We therefore sought in the programme motion to focus on the provisions on animal rights extremists, the status of staff in the Serious Organised Crime Agency, protests in Parliament square, incitement and intercept as evidence.
	Hon. Members have raised concerns about the use of intercept as evidence and the risk that the time taken for voting might mean a relatively short time for debating intercept. The matter was not included in the original Bill but introduced through Opposition amendments. During our proceedings, the Opposition specifically asked for a Home Office response, which has been provided and deals with many of the concerns that were raised.

Edward Garnier: The Under-Secretary says that the Opposition raised intercept and that she believes that it has been tackled adequately. If the mathematics and anticipation of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) are correct, we will have about half an hour to discuss it on the Floor of the House. That is where legislation should be debated. It may well be that the usual channels have held all sorts of interesting discussions and that Opposition Members or Government Back Benchers have proposed ideas but the Floor of the House, not private meetings or secret, back-door deals, is where public legislation should be dealt with publicly. Does not the Under-Secretary understand the purpose of the constitution and Parliament?

Fiona Mactaggart: Of course I do. I was highlighting the fact that the issue was raised during the Bill's development and that it did not initially form part of the measure. The Government are eager to respond to concerns that were raised during the process of considering the Bill.

Patrick Cormack: The simple fact is that the Government have included the issue in the Bill. Many of us would say, "Good. Well done", but we want to discuss it. Half an hour for hon. Members of all parties—cannot the Under-Secretary understand that the timetable is far too restricted? Cannot she take away the motion and give us a second day?

Fiona Mactaggart: I do not believe that that is necessary, because the Committee that considered the Bill managed fully to debate all the issues without any guillotine or knives. The Committee went through all the business. The Government offered additional time in Committee, which was not necessary. We have fully debated the Bill in Committee.
	The programme motion focuses on appropriate matters. It is clear from today's contributions that hon. Members are confident that the motion identifies the aspects that they wish to debate on the Floor of the House. Consequently, I am confident that the focus is appropriate. As has been said, the Bill has in large measure attracted support across the House. It has been vigorously debated and there will be a full five and a half hours debate on Report. I emphasise that the time allowed will not be reduced in the event of a statement.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Under-Secretary at least introduce a motion so that the Divisions are not taken into account? We will not get five and a half hours of debate.

Fiona Mactaggart: I will not and I hope that hon. Members will do their best to ensure that they vote promptly—[Interruption.] By doing that, they can help to achieve—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Fiona Mactaggart: I hope that hon. Members will vote swiftly to ensure that we get adequate time for the debate.

Robert Smith: Our constituents often want to know which way we voted on controversial matters. The programme motion suggests that we should not vote on them because that means we cannot debate them.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman is utterly mistaken if he believes that I implied that. I did not. I urged hon. Members not to linger in the Division Lobby. Some hon. Members who have contributed to today's debate know that they have been responsible for doing that on some occasions.
	There is broad cross-party support for much of the Bill. As a result of the Government amendments that are tabled for Report, to which hon. Members have referred, I hope and expect that disagreement will continue to reduce. I am therefore confident that one day for Report is adequate.
	I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington to withdraw the amendment. Carving out a dedicated slot for the matter that he wishes to debate on Report would mean competing with the important issues that other hon. Members have raised. I believe that his anxieties, which I know to be genuine, can be properly tackled in a meeting with the Minister. I therefore hope that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

John McDonnell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 124.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved, 
	That the Programme Order of 7th December 2004 relating to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill be varied as follows—
	1.   Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2.   Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	3.   The proceedings shown in the first column of the Table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.
	
		TABLE
		
			  
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to Clause 122 and Schedule 10; new Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to blasphemy. One and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. 
			 New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to the use of intercept evidence in legal proceedings. Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. 
			 New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to the protection of organisations from economic damage or other interference with their activities. Three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. 
			 New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to the status and powers of staff of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. 
			 New Clauses, amendments and new Schedules relating to behaviour in vicinity of Parliament Square; remaining proceedings on consideration. Five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. 
		
	
	4.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a   conclusion six and a half  hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration.

Child Benefit Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 12th January 2005 (Child Benefit Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	  Consideration and Third Reading 
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	The original programme motion tabled by the Government had been discussed through the usual channels and had agreement, but the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) raised concerns in Committee with regard to the length of the allocation for Third Reading. He was quite happy with the allocation for Committee and Report. Having listened carefully to the points that he raised in Committee, and in discussions through the usual channels, I agreed that we could provide for his specific requests. The motion responds to all his requests, and I hope that he is satisfied that I have acted positively and in good faith.

Mark Francois: The motion is for an inherently much less controversial Bill than the one that the House has just discussed and voted on, so I suspect that we will not require the full 45 minutes to discuss it. Nevertheless, I want to put on record a few brief points.
	The original programme motion for this Bill, to which we were opposed, allocated only half an hour for Third Reading. The Paymaster General is right that we protested about that, both in the Programming Sub-Committee and through the usual channels, as the Opposition's view was that allowing half an hour for the Third Reading of a Bill, even for a relatively minor measure, set an unwelcome precedent, and we did not want to let that pass. Discussions therefore took place through the usual channels, and in fairness to her, the Order Paper was amended in such a way that if Report does not last until 5 o'clock, which may be the case, we will have an expanded amount of time to debate Third Reading. I acknowledge that.
	First, however, it is important to remember that the Opposition are opposed in principle to the concept of programming. Secondly, given what has just transpired in the Chamber—the abominable way in which the Government treated the previous programme motion, for which I accept that the Paymaster General is not personally responsible—the Opposition feel that we have no choice but to oppose this one, too. We therefore intend to press the matter to a Division.

John Gummer: I will not delay the House unduly, but this is an opportunity to say something very important.
	This Bill is largely uncontroversial. Given the civilised nature of our Parliament, it could properly be discussed in circumstances in which the mechanism could be used without party political division but to get the best Bill possible. I am much impressed by the way in which the Paymaster General has tried to respond to our concerns. Although she and I have had our arguments from time to time, she would accept that they have been on matters of principle and not in any way party political or personal. Will she therefore take these remarks in the same spirit?
	We must recover the respect that the House of Commons has lost in the world outside. Part of the problem is the view that we can no longer manage our affairs to deal with such a Bill without a programme motion, and that we are not prepared to give the necessary time for matters that should properly be allowed serious argument. It happens that the previous programme motion relates to an area in which I have a real interest, which I want to declare. The issue for which that programme motion has left us a relatively small amount of time is of fundamental constitutional, social and religious importance, which I therefore feel strongly that it is important to discuss.
	This matter, however, is wholly different. I hope that the Government will now begin to think about how the restitution of what I would call the historic concept of convention is a necessary part of modernisation. We have gone beyond modernisation being about laying down rules about trying to improve things one way and another. We ought to learn that for most Bills a perfectly reasonable procedure is for both sides of the House to come to a reasonable decision about how much time is needed for discussion. This is one of those Bills that ought to have had no programme motion. I know what Parliament in its various wisdom has said, but this is exactly the circumstance in which the Government could have trusted Parliament to make progress in a sensible way. Unless we recover that relationship, it will be very serious.
	Of course we could have a party political discussion about who might win the next election, but I do not want that. I shall put it in obvious, impartial terms. At some stage, this Government will not be the Government of Britain. It may be after the Paymaster General's life, or next time—whenever it is, it will surely come. In those circumstances, if the Opposition have been driven to a position in which they feel that they have been unable to use the time of the House to have proper discussions about real issues, the difficulty will be that they will not revert to a sensible, civilised system.
	I want the Paymaster General to become an advocate for a change—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we proceed, let me say that general discussion about programming is not appropriate. The debate is about programming for this particular Bill.

John Gummer: Indeed, and I wish to keep to that.
	This is an opportunity for the Paymaster General to say, "Look, the House can handle this without a programme motion. Let us give it the chance." There is no reason why she should not do it. There is a recommendation by the House, but it is not a rule. I am sorry that she has not done it up to now, I am sure that she cannot go back on her word, and her considerable generosity in ensuring that our needs are met is very helpful. I hope that she will recognise, however, that the Government could make a great contribution to parliamentary democracy in this area by recognising that programme motions are deeply offensive because they do not allow for proper, civilised relationships.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful and cogent case, but does he not accept that when Government impose timetables unnecessarily—when the timetable is too tight or else should not be imposed at all, as in this case—it is this Parliament that is brought into contempt for passing bad laws, because it has not been able to consider them properly, and that when this Parliament is brought into contempt, we as Members of Parliament are brought down in the estimation of the public?

John Gummer: I must be careful given your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend's point can be applied to the Bill. We could show the country that we are capable of having a sensible discussion about a Bill with most of which we all agree, but which the Opposition want to ensure is as good as it can be without wanting to be difficult or awkward. I think that we can do that much better without constraint. Indeed, I suspect we might finish much earlier if we were not constrained. The trouble with programme motions is that we tend to fill the amount of time available.
	I merely say this to the Minister. I hope she will become increasingly an advocate of the concept that the House must recover control over its timetable for itself. That means not having programme motions but beginning to rebuild a convention in which the House does not improperly stand in the way of the rule of the majority, but neither does the majority improperly stand in the way of the expression of the minority view. Then, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), we shall not have as much bad legislation as we have had, and I shall have fewer people coming into my surgery asking why on earth we passed clause 62, after which I look it up and discover that we never discussed clause 62.
	The differences are not party political: they are differences that will only be brought out by discussion so we can see what the mistake is. I hope the Minister will accept that, in what could be considered a rather non-party political moment, I want to raise this matter seriously with her. To my own Front Benchers, I say that I look forward to a total commitment from the Conservative party that when returned to power it will remove this element. I want that commitment before an election, not afterwards, because I know what will happen otherwise: people will say "They did it to us, so we will do it to them." That is not a proper answer. I want that commitment now.

Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the business of the House. Let me say two things to him.
	First, I consider that to safeguard the functioning of parliamentary democracy is incumbent on us all. Sometimes we are in danger of undermining our own case by over-elaborating it, and taking longer than we might. The Committee stage did not take all its time, but the Opposition nevertheless asked for more time on the Floor of the House.
	Secondly, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's general point. The business of the House must run smoothly so that the business of Government runs smoothly, but all Members must agree to allow that to happen. If they do not, the orderly business of the House can be ensured only through programme motions.
	I am sure that everyone has heard the considered observations from the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Rayleigh. I hope that, on that basis, we can now deal with the Child Benefit Bill rather than the programme motion.

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 121.

Question accordingly agreed to

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Child Benefit Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Regulations made by the Treasury: qualifying courses

"(1)   Regulations made by the Treasury under section 142(2) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and section 138(2) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 shall include provision that a person (who has not attained such age as is prescribed in the regulations) shall be a qualifying young person if he satisfies the condition that he is attending an unwaged training course of a description specified in a list published by the Treasury.
	(2)   The Treasury, working with other Government Departments as required, shall ensure that reasonable steps are taken to publicise this list, to assist people in understanding the courses a person may attend whilst continuing to be a person in respect of whom another person may be entitled to child benefit.'.—[Mr. Francois.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Mark Francois: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Regulations made by the Treasury: qualifying training—
	"(1)   Regulations made by the Treasury under section 142(2) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and section 138(2) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 shall include provision that a person (who has not attained such age as is prescribed in the regulations) shall be a qualifying young person if he satisfies the following conditions—
	(a)   that he is undertaking training of a description specified in the regulations that is not provided through a contract of employment, and
	(b)   that the person responsible for the organisation of the training certifies in the manner prescribed by the regulations that the training can be expected to result in increased skills being acquired by the trainee.".

Mark Francois: In speaking to these new clauses, I should reiterate our view that this is a brief but none the less important Bill. We examined it in Committee and explored a number of issues, including why the proposed age limits have been set as they have. We gave notice that we would want to pursue two particular issues on Report, both of which I intend to touch on this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) will then make some more general comments on Third Reading. Incidentally, when we reach that stage we hope to discuss an idea first suggested by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on Second Reading. We hope to hear more from him in due course—if he manages to return in time from a conference on pensions that he is attending. We shall see whether he manages to join us and to make that contribution.
	I turn to new clause 1. The Bill extends the payment of child benefit to the families of young people who are in unwaged training. In seeking to define the qualifying young people to whom the Bill will apply, the Government had two options. They could have included all unwaged trainees in the extended benefit qualification, or defined those who would qualify according to specific programmes of activity. They chose to use the second and narrower of the two approaches, even though it could exclude a number of people undertaking voluntary work or work experience. I shall say more about that in a few minutes' time when we reach new clause 2, but assuming for the moment that the Government remain committed to their present policy of defining entitlement by qualifying courses, it is important that as many people as possible understand exactly which courses will qualify for the extended payment of child benefit.
	It is fair to say that there was near unanimity on Second Reading that the existing system of financial support for young people is already very complex. Indeed, the Government's own social exclusion unit, in a report from a few years ago entitled "Bridging the Gap" summarised the problem in these terms:
	"A young person's entitlement to state financial support varies according to their personal status (for example whether they are a lone parent or disabled), what they are doing in education, training or work, whether they are unemployed, and whether or not they are living at home. Money is paid through at least eight different agencies, (with a ninth heavily involved) on behalf of two Government departments. The system is so complex that someone has written a book of around 130 pages about it for young people and their advisers."
	That broad area remains a live issue up to today. In fact, as recently as yesterday, in the context of educational courses available to young people, the chief inspector of schools, David Bell, said:
	"It is just conceivable that 4,000 educational qualifications are needed for 16–19 year olds. But for each young person the choice may appear so daunting that there is no rational way of making it."
	We tabled new clause 1 with that in mind. It requires the Government of the day to publish a specific list of the courses that will qualify in future for the extended payment of child benefit. In addition, the new clause requires the Treasury, working with other Departments, among which the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions spring readily to mind, to take reasonable steps to publicise the list to make it as obvious as possible which courses qualify.
	I understand that the Government are already working on revised guidance notes for parents and advisers, in time for the scheduled roll-out in April 2006. In fairness, I welcome that, but given the relative confusion that currently exists in this area, we need something beyond it in order to get the message across more broadly. On that point, given that the overall advertising budget has expanded tremendously under the Government, could not just a little of it be diverted to the very practical purpose of helping to publicise the list of courses that will qualify under the Bill? That seems to me to be a more profitable way of spending some of the Government's advertising budget than having a 160-page supplement of public sector non-jobs in The Guardian once a week.
	The new clause should not just assist young people who are considering whether to undertake periods of unwaged training and trying to work out the financial implications of their choice but should be of material benefit to the organisations that work with them, such as Connexions, Barnardo's, Centrepoint, the Prince's Trust and others to whom young people look for advice in seeking to make their choices. I put down a marker on the matter in Committee and asked whether the Paymaster General would say more about it on Report. If the Bill is to have the desired effect, it is important that its provisions are clearly understood in what already amounts to a complicated field. I look forward to hearing what she has to say, before deciding whether to press the new clause to a Division.
	New clause 2 relates to volunteering and the types of training that would not qualify for the extended payment of benefit under the Bill and the present draft regulations, but that might qualify in future if the regulations were to be amended. The Committee also touched on that matter, but our purpose in tabling the new clause for debate this afternoon is to expand the discussion and ascertain whether the Government are minded to be flexible about the subject.
	The issue of extending the provisions of the Bill to encompass voluntary work or work experience has been raised by the Prince's Trust, among others. I paid tribute in Committee to the work of that organisation, and I do not intend to repeat all of that now. Suffice it to say that it does very good work in this area, which I hope the whole House will commend.
	I remind the House of the point made by the Prince's Trust in connection with this element of the Bill. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, it stated:
	"In our consultation with young people, many of them specifically talked about voluntary work and work experience, that these should be eligible since these were a form of training that would improve their employability skills and help them move forward in their lives. These, as well as other more informal forms of training, often provide the first steps out of inactivity for more vulnerable young people.
	If it is only approved 'Government supported schemes' that are eligible, then young people may not feel that they have the financial support to participate in these more informal activities. We would therefore like clarification of what is meant by 'Government supported schemes' and whether voluntary work, work experience and other more informal forms of training are going to be eligible for Child Benefit."
	That seems to me to be a very reasonable and measured way to put a case.
	In addition, Barnardo's raised the issue in its briefing note in connection with the Bill. It stated:
	"If approved activities are to encompass a wide range of provision to meet the needs of these young people—and we would argue that they should—there is also the question of who will assess, approve and monitor the activities. Barnardo's would like to see a range of specified professionals empowered to do this, dependent on the circumstances of individual young people. Such specified people could be a Connexions adviser, a leaving care adviser, a social worker, a youth offending team worker, a CAMHS worker etc."
	In Committee, we pressed the Government to provide some financial estimate, however broad, of the additional cost of extending measures to include those additional categories of young people. We appreciate that some definition issues are involved, and that there are also problems arising from paucity of data, and we acknowledge that this is not an easy question to answer. Nevertheless, I specifically asked the Paymaster General if she might be able to provide us with such an estimate on Report.
	In addition, I presume that there must have been some outline costings when the two alternative policy options were being considered—not least because this is, after all, a Treasury Bill. So what was the higher estimate, and therefore the additional cost, of widening the scope of the Bill? The House needs to know that estimate if it is minded to accept it. It would be rather odd if a Treasury Minister, of all people, were not able to answer such a financial question, so I hope that the Paymaster General will be able to enlighten us on the matter in a few minutes.
	Although I am requesting further financial information about the implications of such a change, fairness demands that I point out that the Paymaster General indicated a willingness to consider the matter further. She will recall that she told the Committee:
	"The new clause specifically considers volunteering and informal skills; there is a big issue about how to monitor those. In my opening remarks, I tried to make it clear that, in principle, certain types of volunteering could be considered. I have sympathy with the points made but the question is when and how.
	If the purpose of the new clause is to see whether our mind is closed on the question of volunteering, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 18 January 2005; c. 36.]
	This Bill is essentially an enabling measure whose details will be fleshed out in subsequent regulations that can be updated from time to time. It is not inconceivable that, at some future date, the Treasury of the day could change those regulations, away from the draft that exists already, to facilitate such an expansion. The Paymaster General has indicated already that her mind is not closed on this subject, so does she have anything further to add this afternoon? Have the Government considered the matter further between Standing Committee and Report?
	We are unlikely to press new clause 2 to a Division, as it is largely intended to air the issue on behalf of certain voluntary groups that have made representations to us, but we seek to ascertain specific figures for the likely costs of any such change, if any Government of whatever colour considered making it in future. I would therefore be pleased to learn of anything further on the subject that the Paymaster General can add, bearing in mind her intimations in Committee only a couple of weeks ago.

Vincent Cable: I should like to say a few words in support of both new clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) sends his apologies as he is unable to attend. He was immersed in the detail of the Bill and supported its broad outlines. I will deal with the Bill's final stages but, as a newcomer, I lack his depth of understanding.
	The new clauses deal with an issue that my hon. Friend raised on Second Reading in several interventions and in his speech. How do we define the boundary and the limits? Who should be included and who should be excluded? As the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) helpfully summarised, the Government had two broad choices. They could have opted for universal inclusion of everyone on unwaged training. The widest possible provision is very much in the spirit of Bill, but clearly there were problems with enforcement and cost, so the Government adopted a much narrower and specific definition based on Government-approved schemes. That enables the Government to give a precise figure—80,000—and, hopefully, to be reasonably precise about the cost of £105 million. I suppose that that is why they have chosen the narrower route.
	The hon. Member for Rayleigh made the case for breadth or inclusion. I saw some of the submissions from the voluntary organisations, particularly Barnado's, which stressed that many young people on training schemes—presumably, the Bill is trying help them—are difficult to reach as they are not on approved schemes, so they will be excluded. We should therefore try to find ways of including them as much as possible. As the hon. Gentleman has made the basic arguments, I shall try to anticipate the Government's objections to the widening of the measure. The first, presumably, is cost. Having read the debates, although I did not attend them, I found it unsatisfactory that I could not gain any handle on the total number of people who are included or excluded. A rough approximation would help us to understand the parameters of the debate.
	The Bill is bound to change behaviour so, in any event, there will be a migration from unapproved schemes to approved ones as people take advantage of the benefits that become available. The costs will probably be larger than the Government estimate, and some of the people whom the new clauses are designed to include will be paid for as a result of that migration. As for enforcement, I understand the Government's nervousness. After the problem with individual learning accounts, we know how easy it is for fraud to proliferate on the fringes of the training industry. I therefore understand why the Government do not want to get their fingers burned again by using loose definitions. The authors of the new clause have thought about the problem and have tried to devise sensible mechanisms that provide standards.
	To be slightly mischievous, the hon. Member for Rayleigh rested his case rather heavily on the ability to promote the schemes through advertising. I do not know whether he has read the James report—it has kept me busy for many evenings—but the section on advertising is particularly enlightening, because most of that budget would disappear and the scope for the activities that he described would be circumscribed. Fundamentally, however, that mischievous point aside, his remarks were helpful. He could have pointed out that it would be useful for the Government to make more use of trade associations of electrical contractors, plumbers, builders and so on, as they are active and effective in many areas and could help to identify acceptable, quality training schemes that are not necessarily supported by the Government. In general, we should be moving in the direction of statutory self-regulation, rather like the medical profession, whereby professions and trades set their own training standards and identify acceptable schemes in their remit. Much could be done at that level without direct Government involvement. None the less, if the Government were proactive and talked to the trade associations, they could identify a wide range of schemes that, while not necessarily Government supported, were reputable.
	On the point about volunteering raised under new clause 2, we all know as MPs that volunteering and work placements are an important entry route into employment for young people who are learning our trade. The practice is common outside this place and we hope that it is supported in much the same way. I acknowledge, however, that there is a problem, which has been pointed out to me by people in my constituency. There is an underground world in which some disreputable companies hire a growing number of volunteers, keep them on for one or two years, encouraging them to believe that there will be a job, but then lay them off and start again with a new round of volunteers. In effect, such employers are getting labour without paying for it. It is not at all clear how that practice could be policed or stopped, but exclusion from the current schemes means that such young people are doubly disadvantaged: not only do they have no job security and employment, they have no access to the child benefit provisions either. New clause 2 would be helpful in bringing those young people within the remit of the Bill.
	The new clauses are constructive and well worth supporting. There are some practical difficulties with them, but if the Government were constructive they could help to find a way through those difficulties. I happily support the new clauses, especially if they are pushed to a vote.

Dawn Primarolo: We crossed this ground in Committee; we shall cross it again.
	The Government consulted on a number of issues in the review on financial independence for 16 to 19-year-olds. Some were short-term, and some were for long- term solution and consultation, precisely for the reason given by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). It is one thing to want to achieve an objective, but quite another to find the route that delivers it.
	The first set of consultations, which deals with the proposals in new clause 1, was specifically with regard to defining the courses that would be covered and the training for unwaged trainees. To pick up the point made by the hon. Gentleman in his closing remarks, two real issues emerged from the consultation. The first was the complete lack of proper information about the number or type of so-called unwaged trainees who were outside the Government schemes. That has real dangers, on which he touched. Unwaged training should be properly accredited; that is, it should be training with a result—a skill.

David Taylor: I am attracted by the apparent intent of both new clauses. Will my right hon. Friend address directly the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham in relation to the parallels with the ILAs? That was a sad and sorry saga that I am sure we shall not repeat.

Dawn Primarolo: I was coming to that point; my hon. Friend anticipates me. If the Government are to sponsor schemes and allocate entitlement on the basis of training, we have to be sure that the training is delivered to the standard required. Indeed, the consultation process made it clear that the Government could have approached unwaged, approved training in two ways. The first approach would involve trying to articulate in legislation the principles that must be followed. People would then measure their training to find out whether it met that standard. Of course, that would require regulation and enforcement, and all that goes with that.
	The second approach, which was favoured during the consultation, was that the Government should clearly define the approved training and education. In fact, regulation 2 includes a complete list at paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of those unwaged training courses that the Government consider fall within the meaning of "approved training" in the Bill, thus ensuing a quality-controlled outcome. On that basis, following the consultation I decided to define unwaged training in the regulations by reference to a list of named courses, precisely to satisfy the second point that the hon. Member for Twickenham raised in respect of transparency and clarity, to ensure that people do not have to make a judgment against principles; such things would be specified by their inclusion in the list.
	Of course, a wider issue remains to be settled in relation to unwaged trainees who may be elsewhere in the labour market. They may be called unwaged trainees, but they may be young people who are being exploited for a number of reasons. They may not be receiving any recompense and certainly not any training, and a great deal of work still needs to be done on that.

David Taylor: I am most grateful to the Paymaster General for being so generous in giving way. Is she certain that the Bill, when implemented, will reduce to an absolute minimum the chance that the collusion and coercion of young people on low wages will decant them into unpaid work, so that the value of that work must be met directly by the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue? Can she reassure the House on that point?

Dawn Primarolo: I assure my hon. Friend that provision has been made to stop that happening, but I also assure him that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis)—who will follow up a number of other issues that relate to 16 to 19 skills—and I intend to monitor the wider issues. This is the first step that the Government have taken in this area, but it needs to be monitored and that is a high priority. I am certainly satisfied that that is the best that we can do. Unfortunately, I cannot say that unscrupulous people will not seek ways to exploit the system, but we will do our best to combat that and to try to ensure that it does not happen, and monitoring is one way to do so.
	The proposals in new clause 1 that relate to the list are dealt with in the regulations, which can be amended and developed as we become satisfied about the proposed schemes that may be added at a later stage.
	On how to ensure that young people are properly informed, I will not be as mischievous as the hon. Member for Twickenham with regard to the Conservative party's future plans about publicity and how it would make cuts in that respect. A much more important point needs to be made about the March 2004 report, "Supporting young people to achieve". Again, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), that report commits the Government to ensuring that information about the financial support available for post-16 choices is given at the same time as general advice about post-16 choices. The Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions are working on that and will ensure that such proper advice is available.
	New clause 1 is, frankly, not necessary because it would duplicate work of the Government that is already under way. I hope that the hon. Member for Rayleigh will not press it to a Division.
	New clause 2 relates to volunteering. I wondered whether I needed to speak about it, because the hon. Gentleman made my points for me by quoting my comments from the Committee. I fully support the principle that he is putting forward, as did many members of the Committee. In "Supporting young people to achieve", which was published last March, we recognised that volunteering and informal training could provide an effective means of re-engaging young people, especially those who are marginalised. Indeed, during my consultation with young people they flagged up not only the benefits of volunteering, but the problems involved in providing volunteering that is recognised as being relevant experience and part of a qualification while preventing young people from being exploited.
	It was concluded that we should take the consultation a step further. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman in Committee, this will be the second stage of the consultation. We will report the results of our consultation on volunteering, and the question of whether it could be accredited through such bodies as the Prince's Trust, in the forthcoming Budget. The Government will respond to what has been said and explain how they can take things forward.
	The Government, however, have done more than just that. They have set up the Russell commission. Additionally, a conference on volunteering was held in the Treasury on 31 January, which was announced as part of the pre-Budget report, to examine specifically with the sector how volunteering and mentoring could be taken forward to provide an additional avenue of experience for young people.
	For the reasons identified by the hon. Members for Twickenham and for Rayleigh, it would be dangerous to introduce such a measure at this early stage. We would not be able to quantify it, or know whether it would work. We would not know the benefits that young people would receive, and we could inadvertently provide for their exploitation. The question of extending such financial support has thus been left to one side although, as I explained in Committee, the door has not closed. We are waiting for the Russell commission's report and want to conclude the consultation in which we are engaged. We will report back on the consultation and the next steps to be taken at the time of the Budget. The Home Secretary and the Chancellor led the conference in the Treasury on 31 January, so they are keen to take the process forward.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Rayleigh will agree that he has pushed far enough to make it clear that volunteering will be addressed. After taking account of the responses that we receive, we will try to find a way of updating things. I am happy to ensure that he and other hon. Members are kept fully informed of developments. On that basis, I hope that he will not press new clause 2 to a Division. If he does, I shall reluctantly have to oppose it—not on principle, but because such a mechanism could not be introduced practically or sensibly at this stage.

Mark Francois: I have listened carefully to the remarks offered by the Paymaster General. In responding, I shall take the new clauses in reverse order.
	The right hon. Lady rightly points out that we must await the conclusions of the Russell commission, which has been looking into volunteering in the broader sense. The type of voluntary activity that we are discussing this afternoon clearly comes within the bailiwick of that commission and, like the Government, we await its report with interest. She intimated that more would be said about volunteering in the Budget. We await the specific detail of that, too.
	At this stage, however, our aim in new clause 2 was first, to keep the subject alive for debate. I believe that we have succeeded in doing that and the Paymaster General responded in the right spirit. Secondly, our aim was to get at least an outline financial estimate of how much expanding the Bill's provisions to cover the larger categories would cost. She rightly points out that there are issues of definition to be dealt with; none the less, some outline figure should have been available when the policy decision was taken. I find it difficult to believe that, of all Departments, the Treasury had to choose between two policy options, only one of which was costed.

Dawn Primarolo: It is simply not possible to put a cost on such provision for volunteering. We need more information and the results of the consultation to do so. Similarly, costing the inclusion of unwaged trainees outside the identified schemes is not possible because the data do not exist in a form that would enable a secure and proper estimate to be made and given to the House.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman is sometimes sceptical about some of the Government's estimates, even when I assert them forcefully from the Dispatch Box, but I assure him that if I had a figure, I would prefer to give it to him. I am not concealing anything. We are dealing with a difficult and uncharted area and part of the work that we have to do is to get information so that we can produce proper costings and answer the sort of questions that he is raising, and which I, too, want to be answered.

Mark Francois: I thank the Paymaster General for that detailed intervention. I shall fully respect her right to be assertive—I suspect that she probably never needed to go on an assertiveness training course, but that God gave her that talent—as long as she respects my right to continue, on occasion, to be sceptical.
	The right hon. Lady said that the Government will have more to say on the subject in the Budget—it would be helpful if she told us when that will be—and that they want to consider the conclusions of the Russell commission. It seems most sensible to wait for the Budget, so even though the right hon. Lady has been unable to provide a financial estimate—my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) will have more to say on Third Reading about the absence from the Bill of financial information—we shall not press new clause 2 to a Division.
	On new clause 1, however, we disagree. There is a lack of detail in the draft regulations. The Paymaster General intimated that the draft regulations lay out a list of all the courses; in fact, they do no such thing. Under the heading "Interpretation", regulation 2 starts "In these Regulations—" and then simply lays out headings for the multifarious courses that will be covered. It does not specify the courses themselves, only the types of course, and there is no appendix that lists specific courses. That is not the comprehensive list that we have been trying to elicit from the Government. We argue that there should be a concise list of precisely what courses are covered, which should be publicised so that people will know whether they are likely to qualify for an extended child benefit payment if they take a certain course. A list of headings does not meet that requirement.
	I shall deal with the point made from the Liberal Front Bench. I should mention as a matter of courtesy that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) let me know that he could not be present this afternoon. I am sure he also informed the Minister's office of that. It is a pleasure to have the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) with us.
	On publicity, the James review ascertained that a large amount of spending on advertising was wasteful. Having examined it in detail, we are convinced of that. However, there might be a practical purpose in using targeted Government money to advertise something specific. We are in no way arguing for an enlargement of the advertising budget—quite the opposite. We want to spend the money far more effectively, and one way of doing that would be to advertise the list that we advocate in new clause 1. That might not please the advertising department of The Guardian, but it might help a large number of young people who are deciding on their career futures. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) suggests from a sedentary position that we should put the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), in charge, but the right hon. Gentleman may have other things on his mind at present.
	We propose publicising a specific list to assist people who might be in a position to take advantage of those courses, and those who advertise their ability to advise them on whether they could take advantage of the courses. We made that specific suggestion in Committee and gave the Government an opportunity to return to it on Report. Unfortunately, they have not listened to the point that we were trying to make, so we shall test the will of the House on the matter.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 229.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	As has been said repeatedly, the Child Benefit Bill is a small but significant piece of the jigsaw to give all young people the means and opportunity to participate in education and training beyond the age of 16. It builds on the success of our economic reforms to date, which have provided macro-economic stability, low unemployment and record employment. We are determined to transform the United Kingdom into a high-skill economy, where everyone, regardless of background, can benefit from the opportunities that global change offers.
	As part of that overarching objective, we are committed to ensuring that all our young people reach the age of 19 equipped with the skills and qualifications that they need to make the most of their talents and aspirations. Our long-term ambition is that, by 2015, UK staying-on rates after 16 will move from one of the lowest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to one of the highest.
	Our strategy for achieving that target has three complementary elements: making the education and training curriculum more attractive for 14 to 19-year- olds, improving the provision of information and guidance on the opportunities available, and reforming the financial support system to make it more coherent and accessible to young people.
	The Bill is an important step, but not the only step, in delivering the last strand. It will enable us to remove the distinction between education and unwaged training in the financial support system, thus supporting young people to choose the learning route that is most appropriate for them, rather than basing their decision on financial considerations. The new entitlement will apply to all 80,000 unwaged trainees on Government-arranged training.
	The Bill will also enable us to extend financial support to 19-year-olds who are completing a course of education or training that they started before their 19th birthday, thus ending wasted investment for young people who, because of financial pressures, drop out at 19 before they have achieved their qualifications.
	For the long term, we have been consulting about the activities outside formal education and training that should be entitled to financial support. As we have discussed again today, volunteering and informal skills courses provided by the voluntary sector clearly need to be considered. I repeat that the Government will respond to a consultation on that specific subject in the forthcoming Budget.
	The Bill will provide us with the flexibility to extend entitlement to such activities in the future, once the necessary mechanisms are in place. It is clear from the Opposition amendments and the backing for the principle that I can look forward to their full support in taking forward the reforms.
	I want to put on record my gratitude to all the young people, parents, voluntary sector organisations, business and learning providers who have again contributed their time and valuable experience to our consultation. Their experience, views and opinions have played an invaluable role in informing the development of our proposals.
	Improving financial support for 16 to 19-year-olds in education and training is an investment in the future and aspirations of our young people as well as in the long-term strength and stability of the United Kingdom economy. I have been pleased to hear Members on both sides of the House reaffirm that view and offer their support, in principle, to many of the points in the Bill. That consensus provides us with the foundation to take forward our plans to remove the remaining financial barriers to education and training after 16. I commend the Bill to the House.

Andrew Tyrie: We have managed to discuss this Bill, as we did the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill, with a reasonable amount of civility, and to avoid the brickbats that are often associated with the passing of legislation in this place. I would like to thank the Paymaster General for listening, on the whole, to the points that we made and for responding to many, if not all of them. In some cases, we still feel that we have not had an answer, as I have made clear. She has certainly tried, however, and she has done more than merely go through the ritual process that she could have fallen back on in this modern age of programmed legislation.
	The Bill makes a number of simple changes to the eligibility rules for unwaged trainees and people aged 19. We have made it clear that we do not oppose those measures. However, we must bear in mind the fact that although this is a simple Bill, it forms part of a number of other proposals which, together, make it much more complicated. Whether the Bill turns out to be worth while will depend very much on the follow-up in the Budget and on the longer-term simplification proposals that have been set out—albeit only in very sketchy form, which worries me, as the Paymaster General knows—in "Supporting young people to achieve", the consultation document published a while ago.
	In Committee, the Government accepted that the current system was horrendously complex—I will not list all the major changes that have taken place since 1997—and that it needed radical simplification. They also accepted that there was something curious about giving child benefit to adults—that is, to people who in every other respect are legally entitled to do all the things that adults can do in society, except one. I realised as I was writing my notes that they would not be eligible to be Members of Parliament. For that, they would have to wait until they were 21.
	My second point is that even this simple measure will not come cheap. In Committee, we tried to find out whether it would provide value for money, and we were unable to get enough information to do so. I will not rehearse all the arguments that we had about the regulatory impact assessments, of which there have been two. Both of those rather curious documents were wholly inadequate, and neither amounted to very much at all.
	We do have estimates of the cost of extending child benefit to unwaged trainees. That has been given as £105 million. We also have an estimate of the cost of extending it to students of 19. That cost is given as £65 million. However, when we look closer, we discover that those numbers do not mean very much, because the Government have made no estimate of the behavioural effects that the measures might have. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made that point earlier, as did the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and I, at length, on Second Reading. With this type of support, it is the behavioural effects that we are looking for. The Government are using public money calculatedly and deliberately—and probably rightly—to change behaviour. It was therefore not unreasonable of the Opposition to ask them for their estimates of what those changes in behaviour would be.
	I agree that it is not easy for the Government. I sympathise with the Economic Secretary's comments on Second Reading:
	"we all share the problem that there is a sparsity of information available about unwaged trainees—the group of people we are most concerned with in this context."—[Official Report, 12 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 364.]
	All the same, bearing in mind the fact that this is the central issue, I was surprised that Ministers have not been prepared, since we first raised the point, even to have a stab at making an estimate based on some simple assumptions. I think that we will return to this issue after the Budget—and in a few months' time, when we are running policy—and it is worth spelling out in a bit more detail the questions that ought to have been answered. They could even have been answered through sampling, for example, which would have given us some information.
	First, what is the Government's overall estimate of the effect of extending child benefit to unwaged trainees—we now know that it is only those who have become eligible, because they are already on Government supported schemes—and on the overall number of unwaged trainees? We do not know the answer. There will be an Exchequer cost in terms of child benefit for young people who are encouraged to take up this form of training. Set against that, the Exchequer may save some money—a point made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and me on Second Reading. That will come to the extent that people are drawn into unwaged training from formal education. We are therefore looking for a net number, and we have not had it.

John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that with such difficulty of assessment, an alternative or perhaps additional way would be to ensure, in the formulation of the Bill, a specific opportunity to look back and see what has happened? One of my worries is that the House is increasingly asked to make such decisions, perfectly reasonably, as we do not know enough about the position, but we are not yet good enough at allowing ourselves to insist on the kind of independent outside assessment that a business would undertake in such circumstances? A business would take the risk, but be prepared to have a really independent look at it a reasonable time later.

Andrew Tyrie: That is an extremely thoughtful intervention from a senior former Cabinet Minister. If he cares to look at the amendment paper, he will see that I tabled an amendment with that specific purpose in mind—perhaps he already knows that. Unfortunately—I am not sure how far I can stray down this path—it was not called for debate this afternoon. But it goes to the heart of the matter: when such measures are introduced we need to be clear how we will assess whether the money is being spent usefully. If we have that clear in our minds, we can work out later what yardsticks we will watch to find out whether adjustment is needed. We have not had that from the Government.
	I am very surprised and disappointed that we have not had such estimates. Secondly, how many people will be encouraged by the extension of child benefit for 19-year-olds to stay in full-time non-advanced education? As far as I can tell, the behavioural effects will only work one way: there will be costs and no savings for the Exchequer—but I may be wrong, and I may have missed something. Again, I would have liked an estimate, and I have not had it.
	The Government could have provided that through sampling, as I have mentioned, or some kind of survey. We all understand that we will not get an exact figure—I hope that we would be intelligent enough not to hold the Government to such a figure if it turned out to be something else. But we should have some indication that the Government have been thinking about the issue and trying to find the right yardstick by which to measure it. After all, we are talking about nearly £200 million in expenditure, and it may be much more if the behavioural effects are considerable. We need to know what the deadweight cost is, but we do not know.
	At the heart of all this is a very important group of people. The Government claim to have helped them through the new deal and other measures, but they have not really helped them as much as they say—although we heard the customary noisy bluff and bluster from the Chancellor during Treasury questions today.
	Surely the group about whom we should be most worried consists of those who are not in employment, education or training. The latest figures show that far from diminishing, over the past seven years that group has grown larger. More than a million young people are now economically inactive and not in education. That is worrying, and it should be close to the heart of the Bill. Through various measures, the Government's support for this overall area runs into billions, but the policy does not seem to be delivering what we should expect of it.
	I am by no means alone in being worried about the absence of proper cost estimates. I have taken soundings from a large number of people and groups, including the Prince's Trust, Cornwall and Devon Connexions, the Foyer Federation, Barnardo's and the Association of Colleges. Many of them allude to this issue in one way or another. They do not oppose the Government's intentions; they do not even oppose the principle behind the Government's approach. That is territory that we share. What worries them is that the Bill may not have the intended effects. The chief executive of the Association of Colleges says:
	"the limited information on the costs of the reforms during the consultation period and on the publication of the Bill make it difficult to assess the impact . . . It is surprising that the same government that spent 3 years testing EMAs"
	—education maintenance allowances—
	"in more than 50 local authority areas is introducing a reform",
	also costing a lot of money, without testing it, and with only one year's implementation.
	That is very gently worded. The chief executive makes a number of other serious points about the risk of fraud and the need for good advice for young people, and the danger that the Bill could make obtaining such advice more difficult.
	I have raised all those points not because I want to oppose the Bill, but because I want to encourage the Government to think more clearly about the questions that they are asking civil servants in order to justify it here. I am sorry we have not been told enough to be able to make an informed judgment on whether the money involved will be used effectively. There is much in the Bill that gives us pause for thought, and much that may cause concern among those on the ground. There is a lack of clarity about the Government's destination. A page in one of their consultation documents refers to "the long-term vision", and provides about 100 words on the subject and a rather curious diagram. That does not constitute a long-term vision worthy of the name, and again there is a lack of clarity about the Bill's likely effects.
	Let me end with a point which, although highly controversial, needs to be made time and again. How on earth can a Treasury Minister be presenting a spending measure? It is extraordinary that the Treasury should be both gamekeeper and poacher, responsible for controlling public spending and at the same time arrogating to itself the power to write very large cheques.
	It does not surprise me at all that the No. 10 policy unit, and, we are told, the Prime Minister and John Birt, are working together vigorously to create an effective public expenditure control system for implementation in the event of Labour winning the election and the present Chancellor being moved to another job. Perhaps part of the reason for our inability to obtain clear answers to the questions I have asked this afternoon is the fact that we have a Department that is not suited to such tasks. An Inland Revenue Department is trying to run part of the benefits system. That inevitably leads to the question whether the right people are doing the right things in the Government. All sorts of problems concerning not only the implementation of policy, but whether policy is being devised intelligently and sensibly, will occur down the line.

John Gummer: Has my hon. Friend looked through the records to find the last time the Treasury produced a child benefit Bill? It would be more normal for another Department to perform that function—or have I been here too long and missed something?

Andrew Tyrie: That question contains an element of elegant disingenuousness. My right hon. Friend knows that the existence of such a Bill is most unlikely.

Dawn Primarolo: rose—

Andrew Tyrie: Oh, wait a minute. Perhaps I am wrong, and have not been in the House for long enough.

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman may have been here when child benefit was transferred to the Treasury, and I do not remember the Conservative party opposing that legislation.

Andrew Tyrie: I am certainly challenging that legislation now, and I have the strong support of the No. 10 policy unit, John Birt and probably the Prime Minister. The Paymaster General will be pleased to hear that I am coming to the end of my remarks, because we have moved on to a sensitive subject.
	I wonder whether we have succeeded in getting to the bottom of the exact effects of spending the £200 million. I have my doubts whether we even know within a factor of about 50 per cent. how much the measure will cost, which should be a cause for concern. On this occasion, the concern is not sufficient to divide the House on Third Reading, but we will certainly keep a close eye on both costs and value for money.

Vincent Cable: I reaffirm my hon. Friends' broad support for the Bill, which, as the Paymaster General said, is "small but useful". If my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) were here, I am sure that he would confirm what the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) said about the civilised and thoughtful way in which the legislation has progressed.
	Having read Hansard, it seems to me that there are two underlying reasons why the Bill was introduced, and merits support. The first reason concerns broad grounds of equity and fairness. A group of people who are not in formal education have been arbitrarily excluded from child benefit, and the Bill rectifies that unjust situation.
	The second reason concerns the promotion of training. In her speeches on Second and Third Reading, the Paymaster General relied heavily on that argument. Broad support clearly exists for the idea that we, as a country, should do more training, but it is not clear whether the Bill will encourage training in general. Most of the people who will receive those benefits would be in training anyway. As the hon. Member for Chichester said, a dead-weight cost problem exists, and we do not know the extent to which the Bill will incentivise training. If the Bill incentivises training, however, that is a desirable and positive outcome.
	I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Chichester said about the underlying weaknesses. We do not know the consequences of the proposed changes, and a great deal of uncertainty exists. The regulatory impact assessments were not massively helpful either on the facts or in analysing the economic consequences. We can probably isolate various behavioural changes that could take place, some of which are desirable and some of which are not. The desirable changes include the possibility that people will be encouraged to leave economic inactivity or unemployment and enter training or education as a result of the Bill, which would benefit everybody. As a result of removing the previous discrimination, people may be tempted to leave formal education and enter vocational training, which, given how the situation has been distorted in the past, is almost certainly desirable.
	Another change, which is neither necessarily good nor necessarily bad, is that people will be encouraged to move out of unapproved schemes into Government-approved ones, simply because of the definition issue, which we discussed earlier. Another possible and probably less desirable change is that some people might be encouraged to move out of work and into training. That could be a good thing if they were investing in their long-term knowledge capital; equally, there could be a loss to the economy and to the Treasury. So there is a mixture of gains and losses, and as the hon. Member for Chichester emphasised, we do not really know what the net effect will be. We will doubtless have to return to this issue in the next Parliament.
	Finally, as has already been pointed out, the immense complexity of the benefit system is extremely intimidating, particularly for those of us who have come to the Bill rather late. The Bill touches on but one tiny corner of that complexity. The argument about the proliferation of benefits and tax credits has been well rehearsed in many quarters. There are many unforeseen consequences of such proliferation, not all of which are desirable. On balance, this legislation probably helps, because child benefit is not means-tested and, unlike many selective measures, it does not have the perverse effect of providing disincentives.
	In the next Parliament we will have to have a major look at the proliferation of tax credits and benefits, the unintended consequences of which are often severe and very negative. Ministers often plaintively ask why they do not get more credit for all the good things that they are doing in helping to tackle child poverty, for example. One reason is that many of our constituents simply cannot comprehend the complex system that they have to grapple with. They have to wander through a quagmire of complication, so the system will have to be simplified. The Bill deals with only one corner of that much bigger problem. That said, broadly speaking this is useful legislation. Unanswered questions remain, but I am happy to subscribe to the Bill and to support it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118 (6), (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Security Industry

That the draft Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Amendments to Schedule 2) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Dangerous Driving

Liam Byrne: Today, the Home Office published a landmark breakthrough in the campaign for sentences for drivers who kill. I rise to present a petition calling on the House to pass new laws as fast as possible.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of the residents of Hodge Hill and the surrounding areas declares their concern
	That current road safety laws do not sufficiently punish the offence of causing death or injury by dangerous driving.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to update the current road safety laws to include tougher sentences for dangerous drivers.
	And your Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

PYSER-SGI LTD. (EXPORT LICENCE)

Motion made, and Question put, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

John Stanley: The company Pyser-SGI Ltd., which is in my constituency, is a truly remarkable success story. Although it employs fewer than 100 people in Edenbridge and Tonbridge, it is not only the last remaining UK manufacturer of night vision equipment for police forces, but a world beater. It sold its night vision monocular not only to UK police forces but to forces around the world, including, most conspicuously, the Athens police force for their protection of last year's Olympic games. That was a very significant export achievement for a small British company.
	Not surprisingly, and commendably, Pyser-SGI, following its sales success during the Athens Olympics, wisely decided to see whether it could make its way into the market in China, in advance of the Beijing Olympics in 2008. In order to do so, the company decided to exhibit its night vision equipment in the China police exhibition that was held in Beijing in June last year. For that purpose, it needed an export licence; it applied to the Department of Trade and Industry and received one.
	At the exhibition in Beijing last year, the company received a number of orders, including one from the Shanghai police, who wanted to trial the night vision equipment with a view to placing a much larger follow-on order. That trial and order also required an export licence from the DTI for exactly the same piece of equipment that had been exhibited in the Beijing police exhibition in June last year. The company applied for an export licence, but was astounded to find that it was refused.
	The grounds for the refusal were that the night vision monocular fell within the EU arms embargo on China and that it might—I stress the word "might"—be used for internal repression. I shall come on later to whether the grounds for refusal were indeed valid. For the moment, I want to make two important, wider points that relate to the particular case.
	First, the company was meted out pretty poor treatment by the DTI when it granted export licences for equipment to be shown at an exhibition, without at the same time disclosing to the company that, if orders were obtained from buyers in the country where the exhibition was held, there was no possibility of a subsequent export licence being granted. That puts a British company in a false trading position. Pyser-SGI clearly feels—I think reasonably—that it was led up the garden path by the DTI. It expended a substantial sum by exhibiting at the Beijing police exhibition last year and now that it has secured orders in China for the very equipment that it exhibited, it has found that the export licence has been refused. At no previous point was that possibility disclosed by the DTI.

Nigel Griffiths: rose—

John Stanley: I will give way to the Minister in a moment. I believe that the DTI should seriously reconsider its policy because the present procedure is neither reasonable nor fair to British companies, particularly the smaller ones such as Pyser-SGI.

Nigel Griffiths: This particular company was not misled. In common with many other companies, it is perfectly well aware that the export of products in their safe hands for demonstration purposes and their return to Britain does not guarantee that those products can be released subsequently elsewhere. That has been made perfectly clear to the industry. In my time as Minister, I have received no representations from the Defence Manufacturers Association about this particular issue, so there has been no doubt about the policy.

John Stanley: I am well aware of those points. I wholly accept that the DTI protects itself by saying that, just because it provides a licence for an exhibition, it does not mean that a further export licence will automatically follow. However, my point—I hope that the Minister will, on reflection, consider it—is that when the particular piece of equipment exhibited is equipment that his officials know perfectly well is unlikely to receive an export licence if orders are obtained, the Department has some responsibility at least to issue a warning of that likelihood to the company concerned. I hope that the Minister will reflect further on that important point.
	Secondly, I hope that the EU will not enter into arms embargoes that are defined as seriously inadequately as is the present embargo on China. I appreciate entirely that the present Government did not enter into that embargo. The previous Conservative Government did, along with EU member states, in the immediate aftermath of Tiananmen square. The embargo was declared at the Madrid European Council meeting of June 1989, and its wording is as follows:
	"In present circumstances, the European Council thinks it necessary to adopt the following measures".
	Six measures are listed, of which the relevant one states:
	"Interruption by the member states of the Community of military cooperation and an embargo on trade in arms with China".
	That is all that the embargo says. It contains no definition of what constitutes "arms". That interpretation was left entirely up to individual member states. Not surprisingly, that created a very unsatisfactory—I would call it extremely unfair—situation in the EU.
	Individual EU Governments apply wholly different interpretations of what constitutes arms in terms of the EU's arms embargo on China. At one end of the scale, the French Government—predictably—interpret the embargo in a way that is extremely generous to French arms exporting companies. At the other end of the scale, the British Government interpret the embargo in a way that is extremely restrictive for our arms exporting companies. The result, of course, is that British firms lose out. As a general point, I hope that, in the future, the EU will not declare an arms embargo in terms that are so deeply unsatisfactory and highly generalised, and therefore open to widely varying national interpretations.
	I turn now to the particular case of the Pyser-SGI monocular equipment, export approval for which was refused on the grounds that it might be used for internal repression. I want to make clear where I stand on human rights and China. I regard that country as a highly repressive state, and a serious violator of human rights. It still persecutes people who offer political criticism or any form or political opposition, and those who are fighting to establish free trade unions there. It also persecutes people who have non-political beliefs, such as members of the Falun Gong.
	Both in this and the previous Parliament, I have strongly criticised this Government's policy, which I consider to be far too soft, in respect of China's human rights record. That remains my position, but in this case we are dealing not with that general issue but with the very specific question of whether it is sensible and reasonable to think that the Pyser-SGI night vision monocular equipment might be used by the Shanghai police as a major instrument of internal repression. I shall turn my attention to that in the next section of my speech.
	To provide some perspective on the refusal decision, if we use some sadistic imagination, it is not, I am afraid, impossible to think of a huge number of items manufactured in the UK that could conceivably be used as instruments of internal repression. I could go round my constituency—I am sure the Minister could do the same in his constituency—and visit Homebase, B&Q and builders' merchants in Tonbridge to buy nails, screws, hacksaws, power drills, chains and other goods that, in the wrong hands, could be used for internal repression. Such items are not covered by any form of export licensing procedure. Turning to the night vision monocular itself, I have brought one with me, and if the Minister is interested, I will give him a brief demonstration after our debate. He can see that it is an inoffensive piece of optical equipment. There are four key questions that the Government should ask before making a final decision about whether to grant an export licence to Pyser-SGI so that it can export it to China.
	First, is the piece of equipment meant for military use, and is it constructed to a military specification? The answer is no, it is not a military piece of equipment, and is not on the common military list of the European Union, which lists all the equipment covered by the European code of conduct on arms exports. The monocular is deemed to be of dual use, which is why it is caught up in the export licensing system. I stress, however, that it is not a military list item.
	Secondly, the Government should ask whether the end user certificate provided by the Shanghai police on the purposes for which the night vision monocular is to be used is satisfactory. I have brought with me a copy of the end user certificate, signed by the chief inspector of the Shanghai police and the chief of the equipment department. The certificate asks:
	"Please set out the specific purposes for which the goods are to be used".
	The chief inspector replied:
	"The goods are used in criminal investigation department of Shanghai public security bureau. They are in charge of drug enforcement and anti-terrorist operation. They are member of Interpol. They provide security support for Shanghai World Expo 2010."
	We in Britain, including, I am sure, the British Government, are as much in favour of drug enforcement, for which the equipment is to be used, as the Shanghai police. We in Britain conduct our own anti-terrorist operations, and have taken the most far-reaching powers for centuries to deal with terrorists, including imprisonment without trial and now, under the Government's proposals, a new system of house arrest.
	The police of this country, like the Shanghai police, are members of Interpol. We in this country, again like the Shanghai police, are very much in favour of there being proper security at Shanghai World Expo in 2010. I put it to the Minister that the purposes for which the equipment is to be used seem fully in line with Government policy.
	My third question is: should the licence be refused simply because the piece of equipment is going to a Chinese police force? If the British Government's position was that Chinese police forces, wherever located in China, were, in human rights terms, wholly unacceptable organisations—if they were some sort of latter-day Gestapo—it would be perfectly reasonable to refuse them an export licence for any equipment. However, that is not the British Government's position. Indeed, their position is quite the reverse.
	I have been advised by Pyser-SGI that the Metropolitan police are engaged in training, in Britain, police officers from China in drug enforcement. That training obviously has the approval of the British Government, including Foreign Office approval. It is funded by British taxpayers, and as I have already made clear, drug enforcement is one of the very purposes for which Pyser-SGI is seeking an export licence for equipment for the Shanghai police. It seems extraordinarily perverse that, here in the UK, the Metropolitan police are training Chinese police in drug enforcement while the British Government are refusing a British company an export licence for equipment that would assist the Shanghai police in China in dealing with drug enforcement. Even more ironic is the fact that the Metropolitan police certainly include in their training some form of night training for the Chinese police in dealing with drug traffickers, and that will involve the use of night vision equipment—possibly the very equipment for which the DTI is refusing Pyser-SGI an export licence for the Shanghai police. There are no grounds to say that the export licence should be refused simply because the equipment is going to the Chinese police.
	My fourth and final question is the clincher. Is the UK, in refusing the export licence, following the same policy as other European Union member states on that item of equipment? If the British Government were following the same refusal policy as other EU member countries, I would have no difficulty in accepting that that was EU policy and that Britain should go along with it—but that is not the case. In fact, the position is the reverse. If the UK was following the same policy on the equipment as that of other EU member states, the British Government should have given Pyser-SGI an export licence on the nod, because companies in other EU member states have no difficulty whatever in obtaining approval for export licences for such equipment from their respective Governments.
	I now want to come to the detail of that key point. Three EU member states manufacture such night vision equipment for police forces: Britain, the Netherlands and France. Let me turn, then, to what is the practice in the Netherlands and France. The Dutch company involved is called Delft Electronic Products, and the key piece of equipment is called the image intensifier, which is fitted in the middle of the night vision monocular and is the key engine that drives the equipment. Delft Electronic Products has had no problem at all in getting export licences from the Dutch Government to export that item to China. Indeed, the Dutch company has gone even further than making simple, direct exports to China: it has entered into the joint licensed production of the image intensifier with a Chinese company—North Night Vision Technology Co. Ltd. in Beijing. That company is now manufacturing under licence from the Dutch the image intensifiers for which the British Government are refusing to grant an export licence to Pyser-SGI.
	The situation is even more extraordinary in France, where Pyser-SGI has two competitor companies, the first of which is called Photonis. Like Delft Electronic Products in the Netherlands, Photonis had no difficulty in getting export licences for its image intensifiers from the French Government. Even more extraordinary is the position of the second French company, Thales Angenieux. Again, with the approval of the French Government, that company has entered into another licensed production agreement with North Night Vision Technology Co. Ltd. in Beijing that involves an even more sophisticated piece of equipment—a night vision goggle, called LUCIE—than that for which Pyser-SGI has been seeking export licence approval from the DTI.
	Most significantly, that French item, which is now under joint production with the Chinese in Beijing, is specifically stated to be for not only civilian but military use. Indeed, I have with me a copy of the sales particulars issued by North Night Vision Technology Co. Ltd.—they are partly in Chinese, but happily for me, partly in English as well—and the relevant couple of sentences read:
	"This new concept of multi-purposes night vision goggles LUCIE-NVT has been developed by THALES ANGENIEUX, assembled and exclusively sales in China by North Night Vision Technology Co. Ltd (NVT) . . . LUCIE-NVT offers, at the lowest price, 3 magnifications (1x, 4x and 6x) and is fully in accordance with military & civilian specifications."
	I stress to the Minister that our EU partners are following a totally different interpretation of the EU arms embargo on China and are selling competitive products with the full approval of their respective Governments.
	May I say to the Minister that although I am sure that he has on his knee a nice speech that has been dutifully drafted by his officials to justify the refusal decision that has been taken, I hope, having listened to my remarks, that he will on reflection put his prepared speech on hold, consider the points that I have made and perhaps discuss the matter with his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
	The facts are these. First, if the decision stands, the UK's only manufacturer of night vision monoculars for police forces will be put out of business in the major export market of China, and perhaps other markets as well. Secondly, I must put it to the Minister that it will make not one jot or tittle of difference to internal repression in China if the Pyser-SGI monocular is sold, because if it is not sold by Pyser-SGI, the Shanghai police will have no difficultly whatever buying it elsewhere. The third inescapable commercial reality is that if the British Government continue their present policy, Pyser-SGI's Dutch and French competitors will simply be laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of a British company.
	This export licence decision is political correctness gone absolutely mad. It defies common sense and practicality on the ground, and it is directly contrary to British economic and employment interests. I am in no doubt that the refusal decision should be reversed, and I trust that the Minister will consider the case that I have made for that reversal and achieve just that.

Nigel Griffiths: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) on securing the debate on my refusal to grant a licence for Pyser-SGI to export a night vision monocular and a night intensification module to China. I have a reputation for putting prepared speeches on hold, so let me thank him for giving me the opportunity to explain to the House the steps that I have taken to ensure that we have one of the most robust export licence regimes anywhere in the world.
	Our export licensing commitments are clear. We assess each export licence application on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU export licensing criteria and our own national arms export licensing criteria. We take fully into consideration the circumstances prevailing at the time. In addition, we reserve the right to impose our own stricter criteria in line with Government policy. If it is judged that an export is inconsistent with any of the criteria, the application is refused.
	We take the criteria very seriously. The case was refused under criterion 1, which covers international embargos and, on appeal, also under criterion 2, which refers to the possibility of internal repression. There is an EU embargo on arms to China, which we in the UK interpret as including the export of any goods that might be used for internal repression.
	The manufacturer made the following statement in its letter of 13 September:
	"we  . . . are wholly and totally unable to fathom how it might be in any way conceivable, practical or technically possible to make use of either of these items of equipment for 'internal repression' purposes".
	Let me explain why that is, in fact, possible. The night vision monocular can be strapped to a helmet to free hands for other tasks, and the night intensification module can be fitted to a camera to provide night vision capabilities. Of course, as the right hon. Member said, the items can be used legitimately, but they can also be used to enhance significantly the capabilities of internal security forces to conduct repressive night raids on civilians. It is frankly disingenuous for anyone in the business to claim otherwise.
	I am pleased that the world-class reputation of our police services ensures that they are training other police forces and achieving improvements in other countries. However, providing night vision equipment along with that is not the same as providing shirts, uniforms and boots. Let me be clear: although the case was refused initially only under criterion 1, had the embargo not been in place the clear risk that the goods would be used for internal repression would have led me to refuse the export under criterion 2 of the consolidated criteria, which also relates to internal repression.
	I shall set out why the goods were refused an export licence, even though an export licence was given for the temporary export of a limited sample of the goods to accompany the exporter to an exhibition in China for demonstration purposes. The terms of a temporary export licence are strict: they usually require the goods to remain in the possession of the exporter at all times, and usually seek guarantees of their return to the UK For those reasons, temporary licences do not raise the same issues as permanent ones—and exporters know that. We make it clear at all stages to all exporters, including the right hon. Member's constituents, that the granting of an export licence so that they can demonstrate their goods never guarantees that a permanent export licence will be granted. The exhibition in question was open to non-Chinese customers, so there was no reason to deny a licence to exhibit.
	Last year, the DTI's export control organisation held 14 regional workshops and four seminars to raise exporters' awareness of our controls. With permanent exports, as the goods will remain in the destination country unsupervised, the end use and end user of the goods must be carefully considered, together with the nature and capability of the goods and other relevant factors. Our foremost commitment is to ensure that exports are managed responsibly and in line with the UK's national and international commitments. I know that the right hon. Member shares that commitment and does not wish to advocate that trade interests should override matters of human rights and proliferation. The Government's serious concerns about the human rights situation in China have been made clear. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary briefed Parliament's Quadripartite Committee on 12 January, he stated that although the human rights situation in China has certainly eased, we are in no way satisfied that it is now fully acceptable.
	To assist exporters in assessing whether they should devote resources to securing overseas contracts, the Government openly provide as much information as possible to help them to undertake risk assessment on where to target their resources. The FCO website contains extensive detail on current policy restrictions and country-specific concerns, including the fact that the goods in question are contained on the EU list of dual-use equipment, which might be used for internal repression. The right hon. Member's constituents can have been in no doubt about the matter. I have ensured that the export control organisation's website now contains breakdowns of refusal rates and processing times by destination.
	The right hon. Member has raised the case directly with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Foreign Secretary. He asks the valid question whether our regime is more strict than that of other countries. Let me tell the House that every EU member state is committed to considering export licence applications against the binding EU code of conduct on arms exports or against any EU or UN embargoes. To ensure that no country grants a licence without realising that such a licence might have been refused by another member state, we have an EU-wide denial notification system, which ensures that refusal in one state is noted in every state. If the right hon. Member has further evidence about specific identical equipment having been supplied to the end user in China—I understand that he might have more details—that can be investigated.

John Stanley: During my speech, I quoted from the sales literature that referred directly to sales of LUCIE-NVT night vision binoculars carried out with the approval of the French Government. I quoted the documentary evidence.

Nigel Griffiths: The right hon. Member is right. He quoted the evidence. I asked whether we can have it, and I am sure he will supply it to us.

John Stanley: The evidence from which I quoted has already been supplied to the Minister's Department and was in the appeal documentation submitted to his Department by Pyser-SGI.

Nigel Griffiths: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for mentioning that. The evidence was therefore taken fully into consideration. His letter to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary of 11 January has helped to inform this debate. I have, however, made it clear where we stand. Our refusal must be noted by other states. If they have chosen to take a different course of action, they must answer for that, as I must answer to the House for our actions to date.
	Since 1997, we have refused 58 standard individual export licences to China. That figure does not include many more export requests that never reached the licensing stage because the advice would have been given that they would certainly be refused. The case raised by the right hon. Member is an important example that highlights the effectiveness of the UK's export licensing system. We are working with our EU partners to make the system even more effective because we see the code of conduct as a key element in controlling defence exports.
	The right hon. Member told my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the letter that I mentioned a moment ago:
	"I have been critical in the House of both the British Government and the EU generally on not being sufficiently robust towards the Chinese on human rights".
	The Government do not entirely accept that judgment, and I make no apology for taking appropriate measures to prevent the supply of equipment which we judge may be used for human rights abuses. I hope that the right hon. Member shares my view.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Six o'clock.